Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.10.2019 contained in Memo No. 1570 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Purnia zone, Purnia and further for quashing the order dated 27.07.2019 contained in Memo No. 3640 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kishanganj by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service with immediate effect. Further prayer has also been made to quash the consequential order dated 05.08.2019 contained in Memo No. 2288 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Araria by which the petitioner has been dismissed from his service and direction was made for deletion of name of the petitioner from all registers of the District pursuant to order dated 27.07.2019 contained in Memo No. 3640.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner has been conducted in complete violation of the provisions of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Bihar CCA Rules, 2005’’). He also submits that the Presenting Officer was appointed, but from the report of the Enquiry Officer, final order of punishment and Appellate order, it transpires that the Presenting Officer has not done any act and the role of Presenting Officer in this case has been conducted by the Enquiring Authority himself. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the examination of the list of witnesses used against the petitioner for proving of the charge indicates that examination of only one witness has taken place i.e. the doctor whose signature is present on the evidence whereas, signature of other witnesses are not present on the evidence nor the signature of the Enquiry Officer is present. Counsel further submits that there is gross violation of rules laid down under Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 which expressly specified the role of Presenting Officer in the departmental proceeding. Counsel relied on the decision passed by this Hon’ble Court, in case of the Sonu Kumar vs. State of Bihar contained in CWJC No. 17527 of 2019 [: 2022 (2) BLJ 193] dated 22.09.2021 whose paragraph 17 is very much relevant. Counsel also submits that none of the defence taken by the petitioner before Enquiry Officer or before the disciplinary authority or Appellate authority has been considered.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of above submissions, the original order and appellate order are not sustainable and fit to be quashed, and therefore, it’s consequential orders are fit to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner to dismiss the original order, appellate order and its effect. He submits that the petitioner was a constable in the Police Department and the disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner completely in the light of Bihar Police Manual. He also submits that in the Bihar Police Manual, there is no direct provision to appoint the Presenting Officer and the role of Presenting Officer has also not been defined expressly and therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner is not sustainable. Counsel for the State also submits that from the reasoning's assigned in the enquiry report as well as the disciplinary order of punishment, it is clear that the witnesses were examined and cross-examined and then only the Enquiry Officer has reached on the finding and found charge to be proved and in furtherance, the order of punishment has been passed. The appellate authority has also affirmed the original order in appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the State also submits that the judgment rendered in the case of Sonu Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra), on which the petitioner is relying is not applicable at all in the present case due to the reason that the case of petitioner shall run according to the provisions of Bihar Police M