Madhuresh Prasad, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 07.01.2009 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (for brevity, DIG), Central Range, Patna. He has also sought quashing of the order dated 25.08.2010 bearing Memo No 1556 issued by the Inspector General of Police (for brevity, IG), Patna Range, Patna rejecting his appeal as also the order dated 26.09.2012 of the Director General of Police (for brevity, DGP), Bihar confirming the order of dismissal dated 07.01.2009.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the instant petition is that while the petitioner was posted as a Constable and assigned duties at Ganga Bridge. On 30.03.1987 he was apprehended by a superior officer who, at that point of time, was in the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police. The allegation was that the petitioner had been apprehended on the Bridge accepting a bribe of Rs 30/- from a truck driver of one truck bearing registration No BRJ - 7967. The order of punishment has been awarded to the petitioner more than 20 years after the said occurrence.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as far as the proceedings, which were conducted at the place of occurrence itself, the scope of award of punishment was very limited in view of the provisions contained in Rule 828 (c) of the Bihar Police Manual which reads as follows:

"828. Infliction of major punishments.-

(c) In case in which, forfeiture of increment is proposed to be an adequate punishment, this may be inflicted without formal enquiry in the form of a proceeding but every such matter shall state clearly : first, the charges against the defaulter; then his answers to each charge, one by one; and lastly, the finding upon each charge of the officer inflicting the punishment. In such cases, the Superintendent need not hold the enquiry himself, nor shall the delinquent have the right to appear before him, but he has the right to appear before the officer deputed to record the evidence and to take his defence; and such officer, who shall not be below the rank of Inspector, shall come to a clear finding on each charge and shall submit the record with his recommendations to the Superintendent for orders."

5. Petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal on the basis of on spot enquiry by submitting that such major punishment of dismissal could not be awarded without subjecting the petitioner to a duly constituted proceeding in accordance with law and merely on the basis of an enquiry on the spot.

6. On such submissions, the specific query was raised by this Court under order dated 28.06.2018 whether the award of dismissal could be sustained in view of the provisions contained in Rule 828 (c) of the Bihar Police Manual.

7. Counter affidavit has been filed. The stand of the respondents is that the award of dismissal was not as a result of on spot enquiry at the Ganga Bridge but after issuing a charge memo dated 26.02.1988 upon the petitioner and conducting an enquiry. The enquiry report has also been annexed in the counter affidavit. From bare perusal of the same, it is quite apparent that the Enquiry Officer has recorded that no witness has appeared to support the charges in the proceedings. The findings are based on no evidence and unsustainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi -Versus- Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570. From the enquiry report, it is also apparent that there is no Presenting Officer presenting the case of the Department, and Enquiry Officer has assumed the role of the Presenting Officer, which procedural lapse strikes at the root of the matter. Enquiry Officer being quasi judicial authority adjusting the issue was required to examine the matter as a neutral authority. By arrogating upon himself the role of Presenting Officer, he has not acted fairly. He has presented the case of the Department and himself decided th