S.C.Sharma, J.

( 1. ) Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in both these writ petitions i.e. W.PNo.606/2003 (S) and W.P. No. 457/ 2004 (S), they were heard analogously together and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No. 606 of 2003 (S) are exposited herein.

( 2. ) The petitioner before this Court a dismissed Constable has filed this present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 30/09/2002 passed by the respondent no. 4 as well as the order dated 24/02/2003 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and also the order dated 15/09/2003, by which, a mercy petition has been dismissed.

( 3. ) The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Constable in the year 1997 and was posted at Police Station, Kolaras. The petitioner has further stated that on 22/06/2002 he was detailed as a Duty Guard in a public vehicle belonging to Hardoul Bus Service and while the bus was going from Kolaras to Akajhiri was blocked by putting a tractor trolley in the middle of the road and thereafter the passengers were told to come down from the bus. The dacoits thereafter kidnapped the passengers and the contention of the petitioner is that he did not open fire as the same would resulted in loss of innocent lives. The petitioner has furth r stated that a preliminary enquiry was conducted in the matter and based upon the preliminary enquiry report, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 28/06/2002 as well as to another Constable namely Shri Tarachand Sagar, who was also on duty along with the petitioner. The disciplinary authority granted time to the petitioner to file a reply to the charge-sheet and after taking into account the reply of the petitioner, a joint enquiry took place in the matter. The petitioner has further stated that the Enquiry Officer has recorded statements of number of witnesses and thereafter has also cross-examined the witnesses. The petitioner has further stated that the defence witnesses were also examined and they were also cross-examined by the Enquiry Officer and thereafter a report was submitted on 12/09/2002 and a show cause notice was issued on 16/09/2002. The petitioner did submit a reply to the show cause notice and thereafter an order of punishment of removal from service was passed on 30/09/2002. An appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 24/02/2003 and a mercy petition has also been dismissed on 15/09/2003.

( 4. ) The petitioner has raised various grounds before this Court and his contention is that no order of holding a joint enquiry as stipulated in Rule 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 was passed by the competent disciplinary authority and, therefore, the enquiry proceedings stand vitiated. He has relied upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Moolchand Namdev vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in AIR 1982 MP 459. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued before this Court that the Enquiry Officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. His contention is that no Presenting Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority at any point of time and the Enquiry Officer has himself cross-examined the witnesses produced during the course of enquiry. The contention of the petitioner is that because of the conduct of the Enquiry Officer, who has acted as a Presenting Officer, the entire disciplinary proceedings deserves to be quashed in the light of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi and others vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, 2005 (1) LLJ931. The petitioner has also stated before this Court that he is not guilty of misconduct as alleged in the charge- sheet. It has been argued before this Court that the petitioner did not open fire as a large number of innocent passengers were als