JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video Conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID-19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing the memo of charge contained in Memo no. 2644 dated 21.08.2015, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, whereby and whereunder a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the inquiry report dated 08.11.2018, the order of punishment dated 09.01.2019, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been dismissed from service, the Memo no. 3391 dated 19.07.2019, passed by the Inspector General of Police, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and the order dated 03.10.2019, issued by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna dismissing the Memorial filed by the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that a trap team is alleged to have caught the petitioner while taking bribe, at his house on 31.07.2015, while he was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at Bidupur Police Station in the district of Vaishali, which led to filing of a Vigilance PS case no. 62 of 2015 and the petitioner was taken into custody. While the petitioner was in custody, the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali vide Memo dated 21.08.2015, had framed charges against the petitioner alleging therein that he was caught red-handed by the Vigilance trap team while receiving a bribe of a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. By the same Memo dated 21.08.2015, though the Conducting officer was appointed, however no Presenting Officer was appointed.

4. It appears that a departmental proceeding was started behind the back of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner was in custody at that time and was released from custody only on 02.02.2016, whereafter he had joined the inquiry proceedings on 21.07.2016, at a time when one witness had already been examined behind the back of the petitioner and then two witnesses were examined on 28.12.2017, who were members of the trap team, however, the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine them. Thereafter, two more witnesses were examined on 04.04.2018 and only at this juncture, the petitioner got the opportunity to cross-examine these two witnesses.

5. It is a matter of record that belatedly, at the fag end of the inquiry proceedings, a Presenting Officer was appointed on 04.04.2018. The inquiry officer has then submitted his inquiry report dated 08.11.2018, finding the petitioner to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 12.12.2018 was issued to the petitioner, to which, the petitioner had submitted his reply and then, the order of dismissal dated 09.01.2019 was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner had then filed an appeal, however the same was dismissed by an order dated 19.07.2019. The petitioner had challenged the Appellate Order by filing a Memorial before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, however the same has also stood dismissed by an order dated 03.10.2019.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various legal issues and the first issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Deputy Inspector General of Police, nonetheless the memo of charge was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, hence the memo of charge stands vitiated in view of Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal, Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 2005'). The next issued raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the memo of charge was issued to the petitioner without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish his statement of defence, hence the same is contrary