JUDGMENT

Ashutosh Kumar, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State.

2. The petitioner, a constable, has challenged his dismissal from service by order dated 26.03.2020 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna as also the order in appeal dated 27.07.2020 (Memo No. 269) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Patna, whereby the order of dismissal has been upheld.

3. On 25.03.2020, the S.H.O. of Danapur Police Station received an information that some police personnel are extracting illegal gratification under the garb of implementing the lock-down direction which was ordered in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. The S.H.O., Danapur, in order to verify the correctness of such information, reached Danapur, where he found a person by the name of Sonu Sah lying injured with a gun-shot in his leg. He is said to have told the S.H.O. that he was shot at by one of the constables who were demanding illegal gratification from him. Those constables were not wearing their nameplates on their uniform. The injured person was brought to Danapur Sub-Divisional Hospital for treatment and a case was registered vide Danapur P.S. Case No. 234 of 2020, dated 25.03.2020, under Sections 307, 386, 325, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. The matter was inquired into and in the course of inquiry, it was found that the petitioner and two other constables, who had been deployed at Danapur Court for security duty, were involved in demanding illegal gratification and injuring the aforesaid Sonu Sah. The inquiry revealed that three rounds of ammunition which was disbursed to one of the constables, viz., Anirudh Kumar, was found missing. It was affirmed from the inquiry that constable Anirudh Kumar had opened fire from his service pistol. All the three constables including the petitioner were arrested and forwarded to judicial custody. No satisfactory explanation was given by them for having gone to the place of occurrence while they had been deployed for security duty at Danapur Court.

5. On the aforesaid facts, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, by exercising his powers under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India, dismissed the petitioner from service vide his order dated 26.03.2020. The dismissal was made effective from the date of the occurrence, i.e., from 25.03.2020.

6. A perusal of the order dated 26.03.2020 indicates that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna took note of the fact that during the lock-down period and promulgation of National Disaster Management Act, essential services were maintained. Despite that, such an action was resorted to by the petitioner and two others which has besmirched the name of the police force and the nature of the offence committed would, therefore, fall in the category of rarest of the rare cases. It was held by the Senior Superintendent of Police that the petitioner and two others are in custody and, therefore, the departmental proceeding against them cannot be held.

7. The appeal of the petitioner also did not succeed on the same grounds.

8. The challenge to the aforesaid orders is on the sole ground that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner nor any show-cause notice was given to him to ascertain his point of view and an order of dismissal has been passed, which has been affirmed in appeal.

9. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the punishment imposed upon him is highly excessive and that no reason has been assigned for dispensing with the inquiry before dismissing him by taking resort to the provisions contained in Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India.

10. Article 311 of the Constitution of India reads as hereunder:

"311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.-

(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or hold