The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the statutory procedure, and initiating proceedings based on a quashed complaint and conducting proceedings without a Presenting Officer renders the entire proceeding illegal.

JYOTI SARAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vinay Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Md. N.H. Khan, learned SC-1, for the State.

2. With the consent of the parties the writ petition has been heard with a view to final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 335 dated 19.2.2014 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range Darbhanga in Departmental Proceeding No. 68/2012 as affirmed by the appellate authority i.e. Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Zone, Darbhanga vide order bearing Memo No. 2417 dated 11.8.2014. Even the memorial of the petitioner has been dismissed vide order bearing Memo No. 6085 dated 10.8.2016 passed by the Addl. Secretary to the Government, Home (Police) Department. Copies of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as the State Government in rejecting the memorial are impugned at Annexure 21, 23 and 28 respectively to the writ petition.

4. Mr. Vinay Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has straightway invited the attention of this Court to the initiation of the proceedings vide Annexure 6 at Page-63 to submit that the foundation of the departmental proceeding rests on a proceeding initiated by the Bihar Human Rights Commission on a complaint of one Premlal Mahto against the petitioner in relation to the death of his brother Ram Narain Mahto. He submits that it is proceeding on the directions of the Bihar Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the BSHRC) that the disciplinary proceeding in question was initiated even before the proceeding before the BSHRC could reach its conclusion. It is submitted that the final order passed by the BSHRC was questioned by this petitioner and one other before this Court in a proceeding arising from C.W.J.C. No. 3973/2014 and analogous case and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order passed on 25.2.2016, annexed at Annexure 26 to the writ petition, quashed the entire proceedings on the ground of jurisdiction. He submits that by passing of the order by this Court, the foundation on which the disciplinary proceedings rested, itself stood removed. The second issue which the learned counsel for the petitioner canvasses to question the disciplinary proceeding is that it is by an authority not competent to do so in law. The third issue raised by learned counsel is that the proceeding has been conducted in absence of a Presenting Officer which is contrary to the statutory procedure underlying the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Disciplinary Rules).

5. Mr. N.H. Khan, learned SC-1, while defending the impugned orders has failed to satisfy this Court as to the validity of the proceedings in absence of the Presenting Officer. Rule 824A of the Bihar Police Manual gives recognition and adopts the Disciplinary Rules framed by the State Government for holding departmental proceedings and it is not a matter of contest that the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 does govern the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Bihar Police Manual.

6. Rules 17 and 18 of the Disciplinary Rules lays down a mandatory procedure to be followed by the disciplinary authority, which begins from the stage of service of charge memo by the disciplinary authority enabling the delinquent to respond thereto, casting an equal obligation on the disciplinary authority to satisfy himself whether the allegation requires to be pursued and only where the disciplinary authority is satisfied on completion of such exercise as mandated under Rule 17(3) read alongside Rule 17(4) that he can either enquire into the matter himself or delegate an Enquiry Officer under Rule 17(6) to enquire into the same. It is whereafter that the Enquiry Officer takes over the proceeding. While doing so the disciplinary authority has another obligation under