P. B. Bajanthri, J.—Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:—

“That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction for quashing memo no- 985/Ra.Ka. dt. 24.02.2020 issued by S.P. Siwan whereby in the light of order of dismissal passed by the D.I.G. Saran Range Chapra vide Range Order No.- 45/2020 memo no-535/Go dt.- 22.02.2020 the petitioner has been dismissed from service Annexure- 4 and also ordering respondents to produce range order no. - 45/20 memo no- 535/Go dt. - 22.02.2020 issued by D.I.G. Saran Range Chapra whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service as copy of the same has not been supplied to petitioner and then to quash the same also quash the order of S.P. Siwan memo no. - 2814/Ra.Ka. dt.- 12.07.20 Annexure-6 in which he has informing that A.D.G. (Law and Order) Bihar Patna has rejected the appeal of petitioner ordered for making district order and also for ordering respondents to produce letter no. - Vi. Vaya-Go/Appeal Abhyavedan- 12/2020/101 dt 08.06.2020 whereby appeal of petitioner has been rejected and then to quash the same as said order has not been supplied to the petitioner and to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.”

3. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable on 22.01.1990 and he has earned promotion to the post of next higher post. While he was working in the cadre of Assistant Sub-Inspector, he was involved in a case relating to offences under Section 37(B)/37(C) of Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2018 and the case was registered at Muffasil (Mahadeva Out Post) Police Station Case No. 76 of 2020 dated 16.02.2020. He was arrested and released on bail on 17.02.2020. Arising out of the aforesaid incident, the disciplinary authority proceeded to issue memo on 17.02.2020. Thereafter, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service on 24.02.2020.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal, petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority on 04.03.2020. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority on 08.06.2020. Thus, petitioner has presented this petition in questioning the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a permanent employee of the Police Department of State of Bihar. Before imposition of any major penalty, he should have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary authority resorted to short circuit method in dismissing the petitioner while invoking Article 311 of the Constitution and it was affirmed in appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that disciplinary authority has not recorded impracticability to hold enquiry in respect of alleged allegations levelled against the petitioner in respect of the fact that the petitioner stated to have consumed alcohol and he was doing Hulla & Hungama and creating nuisance in the public. The disciplinary authority has not recorded as to under what circumstances there is impracticability of holding enquiry when the allegation is that petitioner was under intoxication and disturbing the general public. The appellate authority has also not apprised the aforesaid issue relating to impracticability of holding enquiry and in the absence of recording reasons, the appellate authority has proceeded to confirm the order of disciplinary authority. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority dated 24.02.2020 and the appellate authority dated 08.06.2020 are liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State resisted the aforesaid contention and submitted that petitioner being in police service he should have been disciplined and model to others. On the other hand, he was under intoxication and causing nuisance in general public which has resulted in spoiling the reputation of the police department. Therefore,