Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for following reliefs: –

(i) For quashing the order contained in memo No. 612 dated 07.03.2014 issued by resp. No.4 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from his service in contemplation of departmental proceeding.

(ii) For quashing the order contained in memo No. 2435 dated 21.01.2014 issued by resp. No.3 whereby and whereunder the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal has also not been considered and the appellate authority did not interfere in the order of dismissal passed by respondent No.4.

(iii) For quashing the order contained in memo No. 108 dated 8.1.2016 whereby and whereunder appeal memorial filed by the petitioner has been declared not valid as not maintainable.

(iv) For giving a direction to consider the appeal memorial application dated 25.02.2016 pending before respondent No.1 within a reasonable time.

(v) Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper.

3. The brief facts for adjudication of this writ petition is that while the petitioner was posted as O/C, F.C.I., Barauni he was subjected to a departmental proceeding vide departmental proceeding No. 41/ 2013 and articles of charges have been handed over to him vide Memo No. 4201 dated 13.07.2013 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). After submission of enquiry report second show cause was issued to the petitioner and after considering the reply the departmental proceeding resulted into order of punishment, i.e., dismissal from service vide memo No. 612 dated 7.3.2014 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal against the order of dismissal which was dismissed vide memo No. 2435 dated 21.10.2014 (Annexure- 15A to the writ petition). The memorial preferred by the petitioner also came to be dismissed as not maintainable vide memo No. 108 dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition).

4. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment suffers from multiple infirmities. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner is that in the present case no Presenting Officer was appointed in the departmental proceeding to lead the evidence and on this ground alone the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated. He submits that Rule 17(6) of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 mandates appointment of Presenting Officer but in the present case for the reasons best known to the authorities no Presenting Officer was appointed, which is evident from the impugned order contained in memo No. 612 dated 7.3.2014 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition). In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgement of this court in the case of Panchanan Kumar vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 401, paragraph 11 of the aforesaid judgement reads thus: –

11. “Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that in the instant case the inquiry has been vitiated inasmuch as the enquiry officer himself has acted as the presenting officer even though the presenting officer was appointed by the Electricity Board. There is no explanation why the said presenting officer did not appear before the enquiry officer to present the case of the department. In the peculiar facts of this case, the action of the enquiry officer to present the case himself on behalf of the department and also to take upon himself the duty of enquiring the correctness or otherwise of the said case clearly shows that the enquiry officer, in the instant case, has failed to discharge his duty as a fair and impartial enquiry authority. He has rolled up within himself the role of both the presenting officer and the enquiry officer and as such has acted in a manner which is not consistent with the principles of natural justice...”

5. Learned couns