ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 07-01-2025 Heard Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated

31.12.2008 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal. The petitioner also assailed the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga dated 17.09.2013 whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by affirming the earlier order of dismissal. Aggrieved with the afore-noted orders the petitioner also preferred memorial before the Director General of Police, which also came to be rejected on 20.11.2014, the copy of which is marked as Annexure 9 to the writ petition.

3. Dissatisfied with the orders, the petitioner approached this Court in CWJC No. 1392 of 2015, which came to be disposed of by a Bench order dated 02.07.2018 with a liberty to the petitioner to submit his comprehensive representation before the DGP, Bihar by way of fresh memorial, with categorical observation that earlier disposal of the memorial under order dated 20.11.2014 shall not stand in the way of concerned respondent. In terms of the aforesaid liberty, the petitioner filed a fresh memorial, which again resulted in rejection vide order dated 04.09.2018.

4. The petitioner on being found, the order dated

04.09.2018, has passed, leaving aside various relevant materials and by ignoring the mandate and observation of the Hon’ble Court filed a review petition, which also came to be rejected on 08.03.2019 only on account of the memorial having already been rejected, hence further review of such order is said to be not maintainable.

5. Having approached all the authorities and lost from all the places, the petitioner once again approached this Court challenging all the afore-noted orders. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed as a constable in the District of Samastipur. While he was deputed as a bodyguard of Dy.S.P. Anjal Indivar, he took 12 days casual leave and two days permission leave from 10.05.2003. During the leave, the petitioner diagnosed with progressive insomnia, depression and mental disorder. So he was primarily referred to Dr. Satyendra Kumar on 20.05.2003. However, on being found acute mental disorder, the petitioner was referred to mental hospital, Ranchi for proper treatment on 30.06.2003.

6. The petitioner was kept under treatment for a pretty long time and on 07.05.2013 he was declared fit to discharge his duty. The petitioner on being declared physically fit by the treating doctor, approached the controlling authority. However, he has been informed that he had already been dismissed from service. The petitioner obtained the dismissal order and preferred appeal before the concerned appellate authority and thereafter memorial and review, but did not find any succor.

7. Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure 11 to the writ petition and contended that the petitioner filed a detailed memorial before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna on 11.07.2018 stating all the facts and the grounds in details in the light of the order of this Court in CWJC No. 1392 of 2015; but, without considering any of the submission of the petitioner, the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna has rejected the memorial by stating only therein that since the charges have been found proved, therefore the memorial stands rejected, ignoring all the relevant materials, which compelled the petitioner to file review.

8. It is further contended that the order impugned rejecting the review application depicts no application of mind and has been passed, only on the ground that earlier the memorial has already been rejected and thus there is no question to maintain the review application.

9. On the other hand learned Advocate for the State submits that since the petitioner