IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary authorities must provide clear, cogent reasons for their decisions, adhere to procedural fairness, and comply with statutory time limits when revising punishments.

JUDGMENT :

Mohit Kumar Shah, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.10.2021, passed by the Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur, as communicated vide order dated 21.10.2021, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of increment of salary for next one year with non-cumulative effect. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 08.09.2022, passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar Patna whereby and whereunder the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner vide order dated 07.10.2021 has been revised, in purported exercise of power conferred under Rule 853A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual and the punishment of compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, it would suffice to state that the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide order dated 26.11.2020, on the allegation that he had failed to arrest a person, who was engaging in illicit trade of liquor, whereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a memo of charge dated 04.12.2020 was served upon him. The enquiry officer had then submitted an enquiry report dated 05.04.2021, exonerating the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him. Nonetheless, the disciplinary authority did not find the said enquiry report dated 05.04.2021 to be palatable, hence directed the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi to re-conduct the departmental enquiry, in light of the enquiry report, submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Excise and Prohibition, vide letter dated 10.11.2020. Thereafter, a de-novo enquiry was initiated and a new enquiry officer was appointed, who had then submitted a second enquiry report dated 03.09.2021 holding the petitioner to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur had issued a second show-cause notice dated 16.09.2021 and then the impugned order of punishment dated 07.10.2021 was passed, inflicting punishment of stoppage of increment of salary for next one year with non-cumulative effect. The petitioner had then preferred an appeal against the said order dated 07.10.2021, however, till date no decision has been taken. Nonetheless, during the interregnum period, a show-cause notice dated 21.06.2022 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to show-cause as to why the punishment inflicted upon him, vide order dated 07.10.2021, be not enhanced, to which the petitioner had submitted his detailed representation and then the impugned order of punishment dated 08.09.2022, inflicting the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner, has been passed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decision to initiate a de-novo enquiry, vide order dated 16.07.2021 and that too with a direction to be conducted in terms of the enquiry report dated 10.11.2020, submitted by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Excise & Prohibition is perverse and illegal, inasmuch as no reason has been assigned therein so as to necessitate discarding of the 1st enquiry report dt. 5.4.2021 as also warrant initiation of de-novo enquiry. It is submitted that it is a well settled law that in case the disciplinary authority is permitted to hold de-novo enquiry, merely because the earlier report was not palatable to it, it may amount to vesting of un-canalized and arbitrary powers in a disciplinary authority to continue with the departmental proceeding till such time a report to his satisfaction is received. In this connection, the Ld. counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment dated 16.04.2021, passed by this Court in CWJC No.7247 of 2018 (Ajit Kumar Sinha vs. the State of Bihar & Ors).

4. The learned counsel for the peti