By Court.-In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8th October, 1992 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka in Departmental Proceeding No. 26 of 1989, contained in Annexure-5, and also for quashing the order of the appellate authority dated 15th October, 1993 passed by the Director General & Inspector General of Police, Bihar, contained in Annexure-7, and further for a direction on the respondents to pay arrears of salary, treating him in continuous service.

2. It has been stated that while the petitioner was working as Sergeant at Dumka, a tender was invited by the office of the Superintendent of Police, Dumka for supply of 500 Newar’ folding bed/cot. Om Prakash Brothers & Sons, Dumka was a tenderer. His tender was accepted and work order was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka. According to the term of the said tender, the said firm had to supply 500 Newar' folding bed/cot. on approved rate. A letter to that respect was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka (Annexure-1). On the basis of the said order of the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner being the Sergeant wrote to the said firm to supply 500 Newar' folding bed/cots on approved rate. He supplied the Newar beds/cots. Subsequently, the cots supplied by the contractor were found sub-standard. The matter was reported to the Superintendent of Police, Dumka. On such complain payment of the cots/bed was withheld. The contractor filed Money Suit No. 4 of 1990 against the State. The Inspector General of Police (Administration) called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Dumka regarding purchase of the aforesaid cots/ bed.

3. The department on receiving the said letter of the I.G. hasten to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and one Rajdeo Rai. Memo of charge was issued to them. It was alleged that the petitioner had ordered for purchasing 500 pieces of Newar folding bed/cots without the approval of the competent authority. The cots were sub-standard and it was the duty of the petitioner to assess the quality of the cots and not to accept the delivery of such sub-standard cots. The cots were delivered in the store and the remaining cots were also not returned to the firm in spite of the direction. Due to that a sum of Rs. 2,27,500/- could not be paid to the firm-M/s Om Prakash Brothers & Sons, Dumka and there is no possibility of further payment to the said firm.

4. The petitioner filed his written explanation and denied the charges, stating, inter alia, that the Superintendent of Police had taken decision and approved the tender. On the basis of the said decision, the order was placed for supply of cots. On delivery of the cots, the Inspecting Committee inspected the cots and approved the quality by putting signature, though some of the cots were distributed to different police stations. Once the complain about the sub-standard quality of the cots came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he stopped distribution of the remaining stock of cots. A letter was also issued to the supplier dated 31st November, 1983, asking him to take back the remaining 323 cots. It has been stated that in view of the above, the petitioner at no stage was at fault and the charge is wholly unfounded and baseless. The cots were purchased on the basis of the order of the Superintendent of Police and it is wholly baseless to allege that the supply was ordered without approval of the competent authority.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the charges against the petitioner are baseless and malicious. The petitioner asked "the supplier to deliver cots on the order/ direction of the Superintendent of Police. He had no role either in taking decision for purchasing the cots from the said firm or approving the quality of the cots. The quality was approved by the Inspecting Committee after inspecting the cots supplied by the said fir