This Letters Patent Appeal raises an important question of law. It is in relation to the interpretation of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Clause 825 of the Bihar Police Manual.

The sole respondent herein was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Bihar Police, in the year 1994. The order of appointment dated 21st August 1994 was signed by the Inspector General of Police (Administration).

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent alleging certain acts of misconduct. Charge-sheet was issued and thereafter an enquiry officer was appointed. In his report, the enquiry officer recorded findings to the effect that the charges are proved. Taking the same into account, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Division, the 4th respondent-appellant herein, passed the order dated 7.7.2010 dismissing the respondent from service.

Challenging the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Division, 3rd respondent herein and on dismissal of that, he filed a memorial before the Director General of Police, the second respondent herein. That was dismissed and thereafter the respondent filed CWJC No. 12013 of 2012 before this court.

The principal ground urged by the respondent was that he was appointed by the Inspector General of Police whereas the order of dismissal was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, an officer, inferior in rank to I.G. He placed reliance on Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India as well as rule- 825 of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978.

The plea of the appellant, i.e. the State, was that Deputy Inspector General was the designated as the disciplinary authority for the post of Sub-Inspector, even when the respondent was appointed, and in that view of the matter, no illegality can be said to have crept into the impugned order. It was also pleaded that the issuance of the order of appointment by the Inspector General of Police was only a matter of convenience and at the relevant point of time Deputy Inspector General of Police alone, was the appointing authority.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition through order dated 13.9.2013 taking the view that the order of dismissal, as also the order in the memorandum of appeal are contrary to Article 311 (1) Constitution of India. He remanded the matter to the appointing authority with the direction that he shall issue show-cause notice to the respondent without being influenced by any earlier orders. The same is challenged here in this Letters Patent Appeal.

Shri Satish Narain Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned Single Judge has taken a hyper-technical view of the matter and did not take into account, the specific provision of law, namely, rule- 825(c) of the Bihar Police Manual which designated the Deputy Inspector General of Police as disciplinary authority. It is also pleaded that rule- 656 of the Bihar Police Manual which deals with the appointment also mentions that the Deputy Inspector General of Police shall be the appointing authority and the issuance of order of appointment to the petitioner by the Inspector General was only in the light of certain guidelines issued at the relevant point of time.

Shri Chittaranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel representing the respondent, on the other hand, submits that once it is not disputed that the respondent was appointed by Inspector General of Police, the question of any officer below the rank of IG Police passing any order against the respondent does not arise. He contends that not only Article 311 of the Constitution of India, but also sub-clause (a) of rule-825 of the Bihar Police Manual gives the protection in this behalf.

It is a matter of record, that the respondent was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the year 1994, and the order of appointment was signed by Inspector General of Police. The service conditions of the Police Officers in the State of Bihar are governed by the Bihar