1. Challenging order of dismissal dated 14.10.2012 and the appellate order dated 14.04.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to an advertisement dated 13.01.2004, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable. The petitioner appeared in the physical test conducted on 26.07.2004 and on being successful, he was appointed as constable on 10.05.2005. On 02.04.2012, a charge-memo was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that he gave wrong information of his being Home Guard in his application form and he had obtained identity-card through wrongful means. On 14.08.2012, the petitioner submitted his reply however, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. After the enquiry report was submitted. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.09.2012, which was replied by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority passed order of dismissal from service on 14.10.2012 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed on 14.04.2013.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 4, stating as under:-

8. “That the statements made in para-10 (i to iii) of the petition, it is respectfully submitted on behalf of the answering respondents that the petitioner has been appointed as Constable but the petitioner has given false information and thereafter the charge has been framed against the petitioner.

That the only points for consideration that whether the petitioner has completed the Home guard training from 01.03.2004 to 15.03.2004 when the last date for filling application was 15.02.2004 for the reserved category. The petitioner worked and filled up the form on wrong pretext and took advantage when he had not completed training, so no reply is given by the petitioner on this point.

9. That the statements made in para 11 and 12 of the petition, it is respectfully submitted on behalf of the answering respondent that it is a fact that a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him and the Dy. S.P. has been appointed as enquiring officer.

10. That the statements made in para-13 (i to iv) and (a to h) of the petition, it is respectfully submitted on behalf of the answering respondents that these are the matters of record and after considering the facts the enquiring officer submitted report and thereafter the answering respondent no. 4 passed an order in accordance with law and so the petitioner preferred and filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector of Police, Kolhan at Chaibasa who has been pleased to dismiss the appeal as there is no merit in the said appeal.”

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two fold contentions namely, (i) the charge against the petitioner was vague and therefore, the petitioner was denied an effective opportunity to meet the charges, and (ii) under the provisions of the Bihar Home Guards Act, 1947 and the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioner was a Home Guard and since it has been found by the departmental authorities that the identity-card produced by the petitioner was not obtained by wrongful means, the order of penalty removing the petitioner from service is based on 'no evidence' and therefore, liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, Ms. Rakhi Rani, J.C. to Sr. S.C. II, has submitted that there was a specific provision in the advertisement which requires the petitioner to furnish the certificate of being a Home Guard. Since, the day on which the petitioner submitted his application, the petitioner had not completed the training and therefore, he was not a Home Guard and thus, the petitioner furnished wrong information and therefore, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in which the charge of furnishing false information has been found correct and therefore, the penalty of dismissa