The central legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by an authority not competent to do so renders the entire proceeding illegal.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:

(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing of the inquiry report contained in memo No. 144 of 23.01.2014 whereby the conducting/enquiry officer found that article of charge has been proved and held the petitioner guilty.

(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing of the order dated 06.02.2014 contained in memo No. 334 whereby the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Region, Muzaffarpur dismissed the petitioner from service.

(iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing of the order dated 23.07.2014 contained in memo No. 1429 whereby the appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur.

(iv) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing of the order dated 21.11.2014 contained in memo No. 5045 passed by the Director General of Police, Patna, Bihar whereby the memorial filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Director General of Police, Patna, Bihar.

(v) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, with all consequential benefits.

2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrested in the trap case while he was posted as Station House Officer, Jandaha on 13.05.2003 and an F.I.R. was instituted against the petitioner bearing Vigilance F.I.R. No. 46 of 2013 for alleged demand and recovery of illegal gratification of amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The aforesaid case is still pending. In the meanwhile, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner which finally culminated into the order of punishment which stands affirmed in appeal and memorial and is put to question before this Court.

3. Among the several issues raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to question the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, one of the issues is to the effect that a memo of charge has been framed and issued by an authority who is not competent to issue the charge. In the present case, memo of charge has been issued by Superintendent of Police, Vaishali. It is the submission of the petitioner that proceeding has been initiated by Superintendent of Police, Vaishali while the disciplinary authority of the petitioner is Deputy Inspector General of Police/Inspector General of Police. The very initiation by an authority who is not competent to do so is illegal and that itself vitiates the entire departmental proceeding. In this connection, he places reliance upon paragraph Nos. 27 to 33 of the judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Uday Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2017(4) PLJR 195 which reads as follows:

Re: Invalidity in the framing of charge:

27. Rule 2(f) of “the Disciplinary Rules” defines an appointie Disciplinary Rules” is the other relevant rule in the present context inasmuch as it providng authority and inter alia under sub-rule (iii) includes the authority who has appointed the Government servant to such service. The appointment order thus having been issued under the signature of the Inspector General of Police, he would be the appointing authority of the petitioner in terms of Rule 2(f)

(iii) of “the Disciplinary Rules”.

28. Rule 2(j) of “the Disciplinary Rules” defines a Disciplinary Authority to mean the appointing authority or any other authority authorized by it who shall be competent under these Rules to impose on a Government servant any of the penalties provided under Rule 14 of the Rules.

29. Rule 16 of “the Disciplinary Rules” is the other relevant rule in the present context inasmuch as it provides for the authority to institute a proceeding and inter alia empowers the Government or the appointi