Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.12.2011, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur at Ara, i.e. the respondent no.5, whereby & whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service, as also for quashing the appellate order dt. 05.9.2012, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Sahabad Region, Dehri-on-sone, i.e. the respondent no.4. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 04.11.2013, passed by the Director General of Police, Patna, i.e. the respondent no.3, whereby the memorial filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that he was appointed on the post of Sepoy on 08.08.1990, and subsequently, a complaint dated 04.10.2010 was filed before the respondent no.5 by one Shankar Yadav, i.e. the private respondent no.7 herein, alleging that the petitioner had assaulted him as also he had opened fire from his weapon leading to the villagers creating a law and order problem. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide memo dated 24.01.2011 and a show-cause notice was issued to him on 06.02.2011. Subsequently, a memo of charge was issued to the petitioner on 17.02.2011, whereafter the petitioner had appeared before the enquiry officer and filed his reply on 20.02.2011, inter alia stating therein that the allegations levelled against him are false. The enquiry officer had conducted an enquiry and had submitted his enquiry report dated 15.04.2011, whereafter the respondent no.5 had issued a second show-cause notice dated 30.10.2011 to the petitioner, as to why he should not be dismissed from service, to which the petitioner had filed a reply on 23.11.2011, whereupon the impugned order dated 07.12.2011, dismissing the petitioner from service, has been passed by respondent no.5. The petitioner had then filed an appeal before the respondent no.4, however, the same was rejected by an order dt. 5.9.2012, whereafter, a memorial was filed, however, the same has also been rejected by the impugned order dated 04.11.2013, passed by the respondent no.3.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an illegal order of dismissal of the petitioner from service has been passed by the respondent no.5, without any application of mind and the petitioner was not examined by the doctor to ascertain as to whether he is or he is not an alcoholic, apart from the fact that the complainant, namely, Shankar Yadav has not made any statement against the petitioner, thus the departmental enquiry suffers from a serious lacuna. It is also submitted that the past conduct of the petitioner has not been taken into account and the punishment of dismissal from service has been inflicted upon the petitioner, which, in any view of the matter, is excessive and not commensurate to the offences alleged.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that there is no irregularity in the procedure adopted by the respondents in conducting the departmental proceedings, hence this Court would not sit in appeal and reappreciate the evidence, thus no interference is required with the order of punishment dated 07.12.2011. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has further submitted that while the petitioner was posted at Charpokhari Block as DAP guard on 04.10.2010, he had assaulted one Shankar Yadav, whereafter he had dragged him towards block guard room, however, upon seeing the said incident, villagers had arrived there and chased him, whereupon he ran towards the guard room and had climbed the block representative building from where he started firing indiscriminately, leading to the then Commanding Officer and the Station House Officer, Charpokhari reporting the matter to their superior, whereupon, the aforesaid departmental proceeding in question was initiated on the charge that the petitioner had badly assaulted the aforesaid Sha