The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding principles of natural justice in departmental proceedings and the jurisdictional limits of the Appellate Authority.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order contained in memo no. 8951 dated 25.10.2019 passed by the Under Secretary to the Govt., Home (Police) Department whereby the Govt. has decided to withhold full pension of the petitioner.

(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of memo no. 1065/447692 dated 20.11.2019 issued from the office of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna under the signature of the Inspector General of Police (Budget/Appeal/Welfare) whereby he has directed to ensure compliance of the order issued by the Govt. Further for quashing of other consequential order as contained in memo no. 524 dated 22.11.2019 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna, memo no. 16731 dated 16.12.2019 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna and letter no. 1025 dated 14.03.2020 issued by the Commandant, BMP-2, Dehri in compliance to the order issued by the Govt. of Bihar and the Police Headquarters.

(iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Inquiry Report dated 09.02.2016 whereby the Inquiry Officer has proved the charges against the petitioner in most arbitrary and illegal manner and in violation of Principle of natural justice.

(iv) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the memo of charge as contained in memo no. 10816 dated 14.10.2014 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna as he was not competent to frame the memo of charge and somebody else has put his signature on his behalf on the memo of charge. Further the memo of charge is also in violation of Rule-17 (3) of the Bihar CCA Rules.

(v) For necessary direction upon the respondent authorities to grant all consequential benefits including pension, arrears of pension, gratuity, leave encasement and the due salary for the period the petitioner remained under suspension.

(vi) For any other direction, which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. For purpose of setting aside of the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the specific statements made in paragraphs ‘11’ to ‘14’ of the writ application. It is stated that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted in violation of principle of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer himself examined three witnesses in absence of the petitioner and when the petitioner submitted an application requesting the Conducting Officer to recall the witnesses and allow him to cross-examine the witnesses, the Conducting Officer directed the petitioner to submit his last defence statement even without cross-examining the witnesses.

4. It is submitted that when the petitioner appeared in the office of the Conducting Officer on 05.01.2016 and submitted his explanation that he may be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and thereafter he would submit his last defence statement, the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses inasmuch as no witness was present on the said date in the office of the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, all of a sudden, the petitioner got a communication vide Memo No. 6326 dated 06.06.2016 from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna whereby the petitioner was communicated that the charges levelled against him have been proved in the inquiry. He was called upon to submit a second show cause explanation against the punishment of dismissal.

5. Learned counsel submits that initially the complete inquiry report was not made available to the petitioner but later on, on the request of the petitioner the complete inquiry report was made available which was duly responded to by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel submits that while the disciplinary proceeding remained pending, the petitione