SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR, J.

1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 14th December, 2002 (Annexure 6), passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya, in the capacity of the Appellate Authority, whereby he has rejected the Petitioners appeal, and has upheld the order of punishment dated 15th September, 2001 (Annexure 4), passed by the Superintendent of. Police, Aurangabad, whereby the Petitioner has been dismissed from the services of the Bihar Government.

2. According to the Writ Petition, the Petitioner had joined the Bihar Police Force in 1988 as a Constable. While he was so posted in the Aurangabad Police Lines, he was served with chargesheet dated 7th February, 1997 (Annexure 1), levelling five charges against him. He was subjected to a departmental proceeding in which he participated. The learned Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The Petitioner was issued with second show cause notice to which he had shown cause. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned Order bearing Memo No. 275, Aurangabad, dated 15th September, 2001 (Annexure 4), whereby he has been dismissed from service.The Petitioners appeal has been rejected by the impugned Order herein.

3. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Rajendra Prasad Verma, one of the alleged victims at the hands of the Petitioner in terms of Charge No. 2, was not produced for cross-examination. He next submits that two other witnesses were also not produced for the Petitioners cross-examination. It is further submitted that the Department did not produce any eyewitness to support the charges. It is next submitted that there is no material on record to prove that he was on unauthorised leave. It is then submitted that the Petitioner was never punished in any criminal proceeding. Counsel further submits that there is no cogent material on record to prove the charges. It is submitted that the entire departmental proceeding is the product of biased attitude and mala fide action. It is lastly submitted that a lenient view may be taken, and another opportunity may be given to the Petitioner to serve the Bihar Police Force.

4. The Respondents have placed on record their counter-affidavit. Learned Additional Advocate General No. III in his elaborate submissions has supported the impugned > action.

5. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. Five charges were levelled against the Petitioner. All the charges have been held by the learned Enquiry Officer to have been proved. With respect to the first charge, the learned Enquiry Officer has found that, In violation of the Order dated 2nd February, 1997 of the Appropriate Authority, he did not report for duty at the concerned police station on 4th February, 1997, and had instead been roaming around in the township of Aurangabad in a drunken state.

5.1 In so far as the second charge is concerned, the learned Enquiry Officer has found that, while homeguard Rajendra Prasad Verma was moving in the township on a bicycle, the Petitioner had thrown a live dog on him as a result of which he fell down on the ground resulting in injury to him, whereafter the Petitioner had beaten him and had also bitten his nose by his teeth, causing injuries.

5.2 The third charge has also been held to have been proved, and it has been found that he had appeared before the Sergant Major on 4th February, 1997 in a drunken state, who forwarded him to the Police Hospital, Aurangabad, for medical examination. He was examined after four hours and was found by the Medical Officer to be drunk, and had in a drunken state engaged in acts of indiscipline.

5.3 The fourth charge has equally been held to have been proved, and it has been found that he was on unauthorised leave continuously for a. period of 144 days, i.e., from 19th November, 1995 to 11th A