JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing of the order, dated 30.12.2017, passed, in the departmental appeal, arising out of Departmental Enquiry No. 35 of 2015, by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Sahabad Range, Dehri-On-Sone, (Annexure-12) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected and also the order of punishment, dated 10.07.2017, passed, in Departmental Enquiry No. 35 of 2015, by the Superintendent of Police, Kaimur (Bhabhua) (Annexure-10), by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 03.12.2015 and was posted in the Mohania Police Station, in the district of Kaimur. On the complaint filed by one Deepak Choubey before the Superintendent of Police, Kaimur (Bhabhua) that Inspector of Mohania has demanded bribe and directed him to meet the petitioner and the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs. 10,000/-, whereupon a trap team was constituted and on 06.10.2015, the petitioner was caught with Rs. 1,000/- and was sent to jail. The petitioner remained in custody up till 18.03.2016 and he was suspended with effect from 06.10.2015 and remained suspended until he was dismissed from service on 10.07.2017. On 18.03.2016, the petitioner was released from jail and on 02.05.2017, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and found that no Presenting Officer was appointed by the Department and the Enquiry Officer himself was acting as Presenting officer in favour of the Department.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, without going into the detail facts of the case, at the outset, submits that the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner is vitiated inasmuch as no Presenting Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer himself assumed the role of Presenting Officer and examined all the witnesses, as such, the Enquiry Officer has not acted like an independent adjudicator. Accordingly, the submission is that the departmental enquiry was held in violation of the provisions of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2005 Rules') as well as principle of natural justice and principle of bias.

4. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India and Others v. Ram La khan Sharma, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 670.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the Enquiry Officer did not assume the role of the Presenting Officer and the witnesses appeared themselves before the Enquiry officer and in certain circumstances, the Enquiry Officer can act like the Presenting Officer also. Referring to paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, he submits that the departmental proceeding can be conducted by the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer being the same person and the petitioner had full knowledge about the departmental proceeding against him and was fully aware about the same and he even cross-examined the witness Dilip Kumar, A.D.M., Kaimur in the departmental proceeding.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No. 4 for the State.

7. Rule 17 (5) (c) of the 2005 Rules prescribes appointment of a Presenting Officer by the disciplinary authority. Sub-Rule (14) thereof requires the Presenting Officer to lead evidence on which the department seeks to rely in order to prove the charge(s).

8. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra), in paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 36, 37 and 38, has held as follows:

"24. The disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings and Inquiry Officer is in the position of an independent adjudicator and is obliged to act fairly, impartially. The authority exercises quasi-judicial power has to act in good faith without bias, in a fair and impartial manner.

25. Rules of natural justice have been recog