The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed statutory procedure in disciplinary proceedings, and the consequences of statutory violations leading to the quashing of the entire proceedings.

Jyoti Saran, J.

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the charge bearing Memo No. 9110 dated 6.7.2010 framed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna impugned at Annexure 6, the order of dismissal bearing Memo No. 199 dated 23.8.2013 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna impugned at Annexure-31, the order bearing Memo No. 207 dated 31.1.2014 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Patna Zone, Patna, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed which is impugned at Annexure 35 and the order bearing Memo No. 3779 dated 6.8.2014, whereby the memorial preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna which is impugned at Annexure 38 to the writ petition as well as the second memorial preferred by the petitioner before the State Government which has also been rejected vide order impugned at Annexure-42.

2. The petitioner alongside prays for holding the entire proceeding void ab-initio, inter alia, on grounds that the initiation of the proceeding and framing of charge was done by an authority not competent to do so under rules 16 and 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Disciplinary Rules') which proceeding also stood invalidated by failure of the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a Presenting Officer.

3. The facts leading to the writ petition briefly stated is, that the petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police vide appointment order issued under the signature of the Inspector General of Police bearing Memo No. 5572 dated 21.8.1994, a copy of which is enclosed at Annexure 32 to the writ petition. It is after 16 years of satisfactory service that the petitioner was allegedly trapped in a bribe case by the vigilance team of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau giving rise to Vigilance P.S. Case No.38 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is following the institution of the vigilance case that a disciplinary proceeding was also initiated by service of charge memo, a copy of which is impugned at Annexure 6 to the writ petition which, according to the petitioner, was served upon him in jail custody. The charge memo simply charged the petitioner of being caught red-handed while accepting bribe by the vigilance team and relied upon certain orders as well as the FIR in support. The charge memo also named 5 witnesses including the complainant. The charge memo bearing Memo No. 9110 dated 6.7.2010 was served on the petitioner with a direction to file his reply before the signatory to the charge memo i.e. the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. The proceedings were held and the charges were upheld against the petitioner leading to the orders impugned.

4. Mr. Bindhyachal Singh has appeared for the petitioner along with Mr. Prashant Sinha, learned Advocate on record while the State has appeared through Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General No. 4 who appeared with Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar, learned Assisting Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.4.

5. Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the sequence of events submitted that while the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Inspector General of Police as confirmed from the appointment order placed at Annexure 32, the charge memo has been served on the petitioner issued under the signature of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna who is neither the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner nor the appointing authority and thus the charge memo itself having been issued not by an authority competent to do so, is fit to be quashed in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath reported in (2014)1 SCC 351. Proceeding ahead he submits that repeated request of the petitioner for supply