JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents through video conference.

2. The present writ petition has been filed "for quashing the order dated 5.5.2016 passed in departmental proceeding no. 130/2014 by Deputy Inspector General Central Zone, Patna communicated vide memo no. 2076 dated 19.5.2016 by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda by which petitioner has been dismissed from service and salary for suspension period has been withheld; and further for quashing of memo no. 1818 dated 12.7.2016 passed by Inspector General of Police (Appellate Authority) by which the departmental Appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed".

3. The short facts of the case according to the petitioner are that while he was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance in Town Thana, Biharsharif, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 66/2014 dated 23.09.2014 was instituted as he was caught red handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant Parwez Ahmed. A departmental proceeding was initiated while the petitioner was in judicial custody between 23.9.2014 and 13.1.2015. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and requested for supply of the articles of charge, list of proposed witnesses to be examined and other documents. Thereafter, he filed his show-cause on 29.4.2015 but however the departmental proceeding was concluded and an order of punishment was passed by the D.I.G., Central Zone, Patna vide Memo No. 94 dated 5.5.2016 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner then filed a memo of appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Patna Central Zone which was also dismissed.

4. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, questions the legality of the order of dismissal and the appellate order on various grounds, chief among them being the violation of natural justice. It is stated that witnesses were examined behind the petitioner's back during the period he was in judicial custody and no opportunity was granted for cross-examination. He invites attention to paragraph 20 of the supplementary affidavit in which it is stated that as many as 8 grounds were raised before the appellate authority against the order of dismissal. It is submitted however that without applying his mind to these aspects of the matter and to the specific pleas raised, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the State appears and has been heard. It is submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of filing a memorial, but instead he has rushed to this Court with the present writ petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, this Court finds merit in the submissions of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had raised specific grounds before the appellate authority which are summarized as follows-

"(1) The departmental proceeding was conducted against established norms and in violation of principles of natural justice.

(2) The prosecution witnesses were examined in absence of the petitioner who was in jail at that time.

(3) Copies of deposition of p.w. 's were not supplied to the petitioner which is in violation of Rule (II) (2) of the CCA. Rules, 2005.

(4) The departmental proceeding was conducted by Dy.S.P. Nalanda instead of S.P. Nalanda as per clause 12 Appendix-49 of Bihar Police Manual.

(5) Order of punishment has been passed in violation of provisions contained in Rule 828(b) of the Bihar Police Manual, without issuing 2nd show cause notice by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner.

(6) The disciplinary authority has passed the order of punishment since the petitioner failed to disprove the charge leveled against him.

(7) No presenting officer was appointed in the departmental proceeding.

(8) No subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner during suspension period. "

7. A perusal of the appellate order discloses that the petitioner's conte