JUDGMENT

Sen, J.-When the case was taken up for hearing, Shri Gopal Singh, Advocate who was appearing for the respondent-Sheo Narayan Singh all throughout submitted that his client had taken away the papers from him and he had instructions not to represent him in this appeal. He stated that he has no instructions to appear in this matter. Since the respondent had already been served and since he had taken away the papers from his advocate and had instructed him not to appear for him, it was his duty to arrange for proper representation of his case. Since nobody has appeared for the respondent, we have decided to proceed with the matter ex parte.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court on 8/15.12.1993 by which an order of Inspector General of Police dated 10.9.1993 was quashed.

3. The facts of the case are as under :

Sheo Narayan Singh was appointed as Constable in Bihar Military Police in the year 1984. The allegation against Sheo Narayan Singh was that in order to procure the appointment, he had manipulated records of his military service. He had suppressed the fact that while serving the Army, he was sentenced to four months Civil Imprisonment by a Court Martial, and thereafter, he was dismissed from military service. He had forged the service records for getting job as Constable in Bihar Military Police. Coming to know of the true facts about his career in the Army, disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him. Ultimately Sheo Narayan Singh was dismissed from service after having been found guilty of the charges.

4. On 7th February, 1991, Sheo Narayan Singh preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Bihar Military Police who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of dismissal. On 3rd June, 1992, the Director General of Police set aside the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General and restored the order of dismissal in exercise of his powers under Rule 853-A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual. This order of the Director General of Police was challenged by Sheo Narayan Singh by filing a writ petition in the High Court.

5. The High Court found that prior to the passing of the order by the Director General, the petitioner was not given any notice to show cause nor was, otherwise, given any opportunity of being heard. The High Court was of the view that the impugned order was passed by the Director General of Police without compliance with the principles of natural justice. The writ petition was, therefore, allowed and the impugned order was quashed. The Court, however, directed the Director General to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to Sheo Narayan Singh.

6. Thereupon, the Director General of Police as well as the Acting Inspector General asked the appellant for an explanation as to why he should not be removed from service by memo dated 3.5.1993. An explanation was given by Sheo Narayan Singh in which he raised mainly two issues :

(1) The Additional Director General had no right to ask for any explanation.

(2) After the charge against him had been quashed by the High Court, there was no scope for initiating disciplinary proceedings de novo.

7. Both the contentions were rejected by the Director General. It was pointed out that the explanation was properly called for. It was further pointed out that the High Court had not quashed the charge-sheet, but had directed the Director General to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. The Director General, therefore, passed an order dismissing the appellant from service once again.

8. In the order, it was specifically noted that at the time of his appointment the appellant had produced a discharge book from the army in which it was shown that he had been discharged from service at his own request on the ground of domestic problem. On verification from the army authorities, it transpired that the Sepoy (Sh