JUDGMENT

Mohit Kumar Shah, J. - 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 writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.08.2017, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Muzaffarpur, whereby and wheunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 29.01.2018, passed by the respondent no. 3.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is alleged to have been found sleeping in a drunken state in the police barrack while he was posted at Samastipur Railway Police Station as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on 09.05.2017. Thereafter, an F.I.R. bearing Samastipur Rail PS case no. 22 of 2017 was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 37(B) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The disciplinary authority had then suspended the petitioner vide Memo dated 09.05.2017and a charge sheet dated 15.05.2017 was served upon the petitioner containing memo of charges. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 30.05.2017, (Annexure C to the counter affidavit) had though appointed the Inquiry / Conducting Officer but no Presenting Officer was appointed. The departmental inquiry had then proceeded and finally, the Inquiry Officer vide inquiry report dated 30.06.2017, had found the petitioner to be guilty of the charges levelled against him.

4. The disciplinary authority had then issued a second show cause notice dated 25.07.2017 to the petitioner, to which the petitioner had submitted his reply and thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Muzaffarpur had passed the impugned order dated 17.08.2017, dismissing the petitioner from his service. The petitioner had then preferred an appeal, however the same has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.01.2018, passed by the respondent no. 3.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily raised two legal issues, first is that no Presenting Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority, resulting in grave prejudice to the petitioner as well as violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. It is also submitted that the appointing authority of the petitioner, at the relevant time, when the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, was/is the Deputy Inspector General of Police, however the order of punishment dated 17.08.2017 has been passed by a sub-ordinate official i.e. by the Superintendent of Police (Railway), Muzaffarpur, and not by the appointing authority of the petitioner, hence the punishment order stands vitiated on this ground as well. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment dated 21.02.2017, rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Imteyaz Jhankar V. The State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 15089 of 2016), relevant paragraphs whereof are reproduced herein below :-

"While Rule 17(5)(c) of 'the Rules' relied upon by Mr. Kishore mandates appointment of a Presenting Officer where the disciplinary authority himself does not choose to enquire into the charges, Sub-rule (14) thereof requires the Presenting Officer to lead evidence on which the department seeks to rely for driving home the charges. Annexure 3 though a charge memo, is also an order appointing the conducting officer. The order, however, does not proceed to appoint a Presenting Officer which is a mandatory requirement. The enquiry thus has been held on an invalid notification. Even if the charge memo in so far as it imputes the charge on the petitioner would not suffer any infirmity, the later part of the order is found wanting on the appointment of the Presenting Officer. This single lacuna has vitiated the entire disciplinary proceeding.

A similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in