Purnendu Singh, J.—

Re.: I.A. No. 01 of 2023

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner by filing the present Interlocutory Application seeks amendment in Para-1 of the writ petition by adding additional relief as stated in Para-1 of the present interlocutory application.

2. Having considered the information contained in the interlocutory application and the grounds mentioned therein and the affidavit, I find that there are sufficient reason to allow the amendment of the prayer as prayed in Para-1 of the writ petition by adding additional relief as stated in Para-1 of the interlocutory application.

3. Office/petitioner is directed to take steps to amend Para-1 of the writ petition by adding additional relief as stated in Para-1 of the interlocutory application.

4. I.A. No. 01 of 2023 is allowed.

Re.: C.W.J.C. No. 9015 of 2023

5. Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Fazle Karim, learned AC to SC-1 for the State.

6. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:—

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents to quash the order dated 02.11.2022 containing Memo No. 668 issued by respondent no. 3 whereby imposed a punishment of reverting the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector for five years with cumulative effect.

(ii) For any other relief(s) for, which the Petitioner is found entitled in the eye of law.”

7. Learned senior counsel, at the outset, submitted that the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated in the eye of law, as the charge memo itself has not been approved by the disciplinary authority who in the present case is the Director General of Police. Learned counsel referring to charge memo (Annexure-4) submits that first part of the charge memo relates to personal information of the government employee, second part relates to summary of the allegations of misconduct, third parts relates to allegations of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior and fourth part relates to evidences in support of the charge. All the parts have been issued under the signature of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chhapra and has not been approved by the disciplinary authority.

8. Learned counsel in above view submitted that from the statement made in the counter affidavit, there is no pleading or evidence relating to any authorization to have been given or any notification authorizing the Deputy Inspector General, Saran Range, Chhapra to be the disciplinary authority in accordance with the provision of Rule 16 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, the entire disciplinary action against the petitioner is vitiated in the eye of law. Learned senior counsel in support of his contention relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. B. V. Gopinath, reported in 2014 (1) SCC 351, submitted that in the said case also, the charge memo was not approved by the disciplinary authority, the same having not fulfilled the mandate of Article 311 was set aside holding the proceeding also to be vitiated in the eye of law. Learned counsel further informs this Court that the petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty order dated 02.11.2022 contained in Memo No. 668 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) and order dated 22.06.2023 contained in Memo No. 7493, whereby memorial appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 02.11.2022 passed in Saran District Departmental Proceeding No. 48 of 2018 has been rejected, are vitiated in the eye of law.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that no information relating to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chhapra as to whether he has been authorized or not, has been given in the counter affidavit, the same cannot vitiate the entire departmental proceeding. The petitioner was