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

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent authority to quash the dismissal order of the petitioner issued vide Memo No. 229/ lk0 'kk0 dated 26.01.2014 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) and Memo N. 1092 dated 27.05.2014 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur (Annexure-4A to the Writ Petition). The further prayer of the petitioner to quash the order passed in the Memorial by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna vide Memo No. 5029 dated 20.11.2014 in Disciplinary Proceeding Appeal No. 29 of 2013 (as contained in Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire departmental proceeding is bad in law because it was conducted in the absence of a Presenting Officer. He further submits that the petitioner was admittedly an A.S.I. in the police department, and the departmental proceeding against him was conducted under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CCA Rules, 2005'). Learned counsel emphasizes that Rule 17(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005 casts a mandatory duty on the Presenting Officer to lead evidence and examine witnesses, which has not been done. Instead, the Enquiry Officer himself assumed this role.

4. He further submits that in the case of Panchanan Kumar vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors., reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 401, it was held that the action of the Enquiry Officer in presenting the case on behalf of the department and also examining the correctness of the case clearly indicates that the Enquiry Officer, in the present case, has failed to discharge his duty as a fair and impartial authority. Learned counsel further submits that due to the gross violation of the failure to appoint a Presenting Officer in the departmental proceeding, the entire proceeding is bad in law.

4A. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the departmental proceeding in the present case must be conducted according to the Police Manual. Therefore, the benefit, as claimed by counsel for the petitioner, cannot be granted. He submits that the entire proceeding has been conducted in full accordance with the law and that there is no illegality in the said proceeding. He further submits that there is no illegality in the orders passed by the Original Authority, Appellate Authority, or Memorial Authority. Hence, the present Writ Petition should be dismissed.

5. After hearing the parties, there are two points to be examined. The first point is whether the departmental proceeding should be conducted according to the Police Manual, and whether the CCA Rules, 2005, are not applicable in this case. The second point is whether the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the CCA Rules, 2005, are applicable, would vitiate the departmental proceeding against the petitioner.

6. The question of applicability of CCA Rules, 2005 in case of employees of Bihar Police has been tested by this Court in the case of Md. Giaaul Hak vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. passed in CWJC No. 25445 of 2019 dated 06.11.2023 [: 2024 (1) BLJ 94] Paragraph 15 to 17 whereof is quoted as under:—

"15. In this background, it becomes crystal clear to this Court that for the police officials whether gazetted or non-gazetted, the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 shall be applicable to take disciplinary action against them. In this view of the matter, this Court rejects the contention of the respondent that police manual shall only apply because police manual itself indicates that disciplinary action shall run according to disciplinary rules 1930 & 1935, which are replaced by Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. After conjugal reading of Rules 824 A of Bihar Police Manual read with Rule 32 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, the issue about applicability of the rule in the disciplin