The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the mandatory obligations and procedures outlined in the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, particularly Rule 17 and Rule 18, in conducting disciplinary proceedings.

1. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Pranav Kumar Advocate on Record and the State is represented by Mr. Sameer Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.16.

2. In the nature of the order this Court proposes to pass it would not be required to delve deep into the merits of the case because undisputedly the entire proceedings is vitiated with statutory violations of the provisions underlying the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).

3. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 8.2.2016 passed by the respondent No. 4, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna, a copy of which is impugned at Annexure-8 whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed thus affirming the order bearing Memo No. 13563 dated 23.11.2015 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, a copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-7 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

4. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 4645 dated 31.8.2016 of the Director General of Police impugned at Annexure-10 whereby his memorial has also been rejected.

5. A copy of the charge memo is impugned at Annexure-4 and holds the petitioner responsible for the death of the tractor driver Guddu Kumar. According to the charge memo the said Guddu Kumar was trying to escape from the illegal demand of the patrolling party led by the petitioner and in the process met with an accident. The charge memo relies upon the suspension order bearing No. 2500 of 2014. A copy of the F.I.R. dated 11.6.2014 as well as the complaint of the owner of the tractor. 3 or 4 witnesses have also been mentioned in the charge memo. A copy of the enquiry report is present at Annexure-5 holding the petitioner guilty and which is followed by a show cause on the enquiry report vide Annexure 6A which was responded to by the petitioner vide Annexure-6B but has resulted in the dismissal order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna bearing Memo No. 13563 dated 23.11.2015 impugned at Annexure-7. The order of dismissal has been affirmed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-8 as well as by the Director General of Police in rejecting the memorial vide Annexure-10. The petitioner feeling aggrieved is before this Court.

6. It is the submission of Mr. Giri that the disciplinary proceeding was a sham inasmuch as the opinion of the disciplinary authorities is not resting on any evidence, so much so that no Presenting Officer was appointed to lead evidence on behalf of the Department. It is considering such submission that this court directed for production of the disciplinary proceeding and which has since been produced by Mr. Singh learned State counsel. On query made, it is informed by Mr. Singh on verification from the records that the punishment order is resting on the opinion expressed by the superior authorities in the supervision note and that neither any documentary evidence nor any oral evidence was led by the department. He also accepts that no Presenting Officer was appointed for the proceeding.

7. The writ petition in question is an addition to the chain of writ petitions where the disciplinary proceeding has been held in complete ignorance of the mandatory obligations cast upon a disciplinary authority under Rule 17 and 18 of ‘the Rules’. To put a Government servant on a disciplinary charge, is not a routine affair rather it requires a satisfaction of the disciplinary authority to examine the defence of the delinquent concerned on the charge so framed against him before he refers the matter for an enquiry in terms of ‘the Rules’ so expressed under Rule 17 more particularly Sub rule (3)(4)(5) and (6). The obligation on the disciplinary authority does not stop here rather it is also his obligation to appoint a Presenting Officer who has a duty to discharge under Sub rule (4) of