Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of punishment dt. 31.3.2022/ 4.4.2022, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of forfeiture of one annual increment with cumulative effect, which is equivalent to two black marks. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 13.10.2022, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Shahabad Area, Dehri-on-Sone, as also the order dated 06.12.2022, passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar Patna whereby and whereunder the memorial filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner was posted at the relevant time at Sasaram (Muffasil) Police Station as Sub-Inspector of Police when Charge-sheet dated 15.03.2021 was served upon the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas inter alia alleging therein that while the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at Sasaram (Mufassil) Police Station, the petitioner had not taken any action to verify the name and address of the owner of one Yamaha Motorcycle seized in connection with Sasaram (Mufassil) P.S. Case No.226 of 2020 dated 19.07.2020, under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act, 2018 although the accused of the said case is a local resident of the area in question as also he had not gone outside the State of Bihar, in connection with one another case, to verify the name and owner of the seized truck although his name and address was available with him, which depicts gross negligence & dereliction in carrying out his duties.

3. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer, whereupon the Enquiry Officer had submitted an enquiry report dated 14.07.2021 in connection with Rohtas District Departmental Proceeding No.12/2021, finding the petitioner to be not guilty of the charges levelled against him. Nonetheless, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas had issued a second show-cause notice dt. 30.10.2021/1.11.2021 to the petitioner, however, no reason whatsoever, for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, was mentioned therein. The petitioner had then filed reply to the aforesaid second show-cause notice, whereafter the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, by the impugned order dated 31.03.2022/04.04.2022 had inflicted the punishment of forfeiture of one annual increment with cumulative effect, equivalent to two black marks.

4. The petitioner had then filed an appeal, however the same had also stood dismissed, by an order dated 13.10.2022, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Shahabad Area, Dehri-on-Sone. The petitioner had then filed a memorial, before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, however the same has also stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 06.12.2022 on the ground that the same is not maintainable, inasmuch as memorial can be filed only against the punishment of dismissal from service or removal from service.

5. The short point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for consideration is that though the Enquiry Officer, in his enquiry report dated 14.07.2021 has exonerated the petitioner, however, the Disciplinary Authority has differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and inflicted punishment vide order dated 31.03.2022/ 04.04.2022, without either granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard or putting forth his defence with regard to the reasons for such disagreement, inasmuch as the second show-cause notice dt. 30.10.2021/ 1.11.2021, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas does not mention any reason for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, thus, it is submitted that the principles of natural justice have been violated.

6. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted, by referring to the co