Termination of a government employee without evidence and proper authority violates Article 311 and principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

1. The Petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Bihar Police Service. He joined the service as Sub-Inspector of Police on 5th of September 1994. On the allegation that on 09.08.2007, when was posted at Pachpakari Outpost within Dhaka Police Station in the district of East Champaran, he was apprehended by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau on the allegation that he was taking bribe. Following such allegation, it was held by the Police Department that the purported act of the Petitioner was misconduct. As a result of which he was directed to face departmental proceeding following service of charge-sheet on 31st of August 2007.

2. Annexure - 2 is the charge-sheet issued by the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari, which inter alia, states: -

“Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Superintendent of Police Incharge cum Sub-divisional Police Officer informed the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran that Ratnesh Kumar, Petitioner herein, was arrested by Vigilance Investigation Bureau in a trap on 9th of August 2007 while he was taking bribe. Police attached to Vigilance Investigation Bureau conducted the said trap on the basis of General Diary Entry No. 1607, dated 08.08.2007 at 07.30 a.m. The On-duty Police Officer, Dhaka Police and the SHO, Dharmendra Kumar and Police Officers corroborated the said fact of arrest of the Petitioner by Vigilance Investigation Bureau while allegedly he was taking bribe.”

3. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the memo of charge was not drafted in the manner as described under the law relating to disciplinary proceedings. Be that as it may, following the departmental proceeding, the Petitioner was punished and terminated from service, vide order dated 30th of November 2011, issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Champaran Range, Bettiah. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the DIG, Champaran Range, Bettiah before the Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur. However, he affirmed the order of the DIG Police and affirmed the order of termination passed against the Petitioner.

4. The Petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1328 of 2017. By an order dated 19th of February 2018, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner, was allowed and a Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the orders of the disciplinary authority, dated 30th of November 2011 and the order of the IG, Police dated 16th of June 2012 and was pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the writ Petitioner to join the service and release all consequential benefits with a liberty to the respondents to further proceed with the case in accordance with law.

5. The Petitioner again joined his service as per the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1328 of 2017 on 19th of February 2018 but his joining was not accepted and, therefore, he was not treated as in service.

6. Again on 24th of April 2018, a departmental charge-sheet was issued, which was practically a replication of the charge-sheet dated 31st of August 2007.

7. It is contended by the Petitioner that as he was not allowed to join the service as per the direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1328 of 2017, he could not be considered as in service and, therefore, second memorandum of charge issued by the Superintendent of Police Motihari on 24th of April 2018 is illegal, inoperative and the Petitioner was not subjected to any departmental proceeding as he was not allowed to join his service. The Superintendent of Police, Motihari could not act as departmental authority as the Petitioner was appointed by Inspector General of Police (Admin) Patna Bihar. The appointing authority only is the disciplinary authority in terms of settled law of Land.

8. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Officer was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Inspector, Dhaka, Arjun Kumar was appointed as Presenting Officer. The Petitioner further alleges that enquiry should be conducted under the provisions of Rules 17 and