Disciplinary action against government employees must comply with statutory provisions, and jurisdictional authority must be respected; lack of proper procedure and reasoning renders proceedings void.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Kumar, J.

The petitioner is represented through Mr. Vinay Ranjan, learned Advocate and the State respondents through Mr. P. K. Verma, learned Senior Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General No.-3.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as contained in Memo No. 1108 dated 08.12.2020, issued under the signature of Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service. The challenge has also been made to the order, as contained in letter no. 106 dated 02.03.2021, by which the Departmental Appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected; further, the order, as contained in letter no. 6101 dated 23.06.2022, issued under the signature of Under Secretary to the Government of Bihar, whereby the Memorial Appeal against the appellate order also came to be rejected.

3. The facts in brief, as culled out from the materials available on record, are incorporated hereinunder:

(i) The petitioner was duly inducted in Bihar Police Service as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2009. While he was posted as S.H.O. Baunsi police station, one Mukesh Mukhiya was brought in the police station in drunken position, but allegedly he was released by the petitioner from the police station itself after accepting bribe of Rs.8,000/- through Chaukidar, namely, Raj Kumar. Further, on that date itself, one another person, namely, Asfaque was also arrested with five bottles of Corex Cough Syrup on his motorcycle, leading to institution of the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner.

(ii) One Surendra Paswan, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, was appointed as investigating officer of the said case, but initially he refused to accept the case for investigation, whereupon some hot exchange of abusive talk took place, resulting into a complaint filed by ASI Surendra Paswan to the Superintendent of Police, Araria along with the name of the witnesses, who had allegedly seen the occurrence. It is also alleged that the petitioner after accepting bribe of Rs.15,000/- from the family members of accused Asfaque, released the motorcycle illegally. The aforesaid incident and on receipt of the written complaint, led to issuance of Memo No. 19481 dated 01.07.2019 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Araria directing the Sergeant Major to enquire the matter and submit his report. In compliance thereto, the Sergeant Major submitted his enquiry report on 05.07.2019.

(iii) The Superintendent of Police, Araria, on being dissatisfied with the report vide Memo No. 20234 dated 07.07.2019 asked the Sergeant Major to submit a fresh enquiry report on the point mentioned therein. A fresh enquiry report was submitted on 12.07.2019, but this report did not satisfy the Superintendent of Police, Araria leading to fresh enquiry and the Sergeant Major again submitted his 3^rd enquiry report on 19.07.2019. This time also, the report could not satisfy the Superintendent of Police, Araria, who vide Memo No. 30470 dated 20.07.2019 asked for another enquiry report, whereupon the enquiry report dated 26.07.2019 was submitted but the Superintendent of Police, Araria directed for a fresh enquiry and lastly 5^th en