The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of appointing a Presenting Officer in departmental proceedings under Rule 17(5)(c) of the CCA Rules, 2005, and the adherence to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

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

“(i) for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorary or any other appropriate writ for quashing of the order of dismissal from the service of petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna vide its order dated 05.07.2013 contained in Memo No. 155 and the said order was communicated to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda vide District Order No. 1017 dated 27.07.2013 contained in Memo no. 2968 (Annexure 3 and 4) in a very mechanical and casual manner having without authority of law.

(ii) for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for directing and commanding the responsible respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and give all the consequential and ancillary benefits to the petitioner for which, he is legally entitled to.

(iii) for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing of the order dated 12.02.2014 contained in Memo No. 278 (Anenxure-9) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Patna whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has illegally and arbitrarily been dismissed in a very mechanical manner and without applying the judicious mind.

(iv) for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing of the order dated 10.06.2016 contained in Memo No. 4635 (Annexure-13) passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the Memorial of Appeal filed by the petitioner has illegally and arbitrarily been dismissed in a very mechanical manner without appreciating the fact and circumstances of this case that the alleged charge levelled against this petitioner and for the same set of alleged charge, this petitioner was subjected to departmental proceeding as well as criminal proceeding, in which he has already been acquitted vide order dated 31.10.2013 by the competent court of jurisdiction.

(v) and further any appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as this court deem fit and proper.”

2. In the nature of the order which this Court propoes to pass it would not require to enter into the relative merit of the case. Suffice it to say that the petitioner was posted as SI, Nalanda, a criminal case was registered against this petitioner under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code bearing Vaishali PS Case No. 40 of 2007. In the meanwhile, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner which culminated into an order of dismissal stands affirmed and put to question before this Court.

3. Several grounds have been taken by the petitioner to assail the impugned order. One of the grounds is that during the enquiry no presenting officer was appointed and without appointment of the presenting officer under Rule 17(5)(c) of the CCA Rules, 2005 the entire departmental proceeding vitiates. Learned counsel in support of his contention as referred to a decision reported in 2017(4) PLJR 276 (Lalan Pandey vs. State of Bihar) to submit that the failure on the part of the department to appoint a Presenting Officer has been held fatal as to the validity of the disciplinary proceeding.

4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be contested and is supported by the documents on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State in reply submits that he is unable to controvert the contention made on behalf of the petitioner. In para 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 contends that no presenting officer was appointed in the departmental proceeding held against the petitioner as per the records. He further submits that on the ground of non-appointment of Presenting Officer the departmental proceeding may not be interfered with as the petitioner was dismissed way back in the year 2013 it