ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 19-02-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the letter no. 4578 dated 31.12.2014 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur in connection with departmental proceeding no. 59/12 and further for quashing of the letter no. 317 dated 10.04.2015 passed by Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur in connection with departmental proceeding no. 59 of 2012 and further prayer has been made to accept joining of the petitioner and to pay the entire salary with effect from 11.07.2012. The further prayer has been made by way of I.A. No. 01 of 2023 which was allowed vide order dated

09.01.2015 passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna by which the memorial of the petitioner has been rejected.

3. Counsel for petitioner submits that order of punishment has been passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna in gross violation of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and neither in appeal nor in memorial, the said procedural mistakes had been corrected by the Officials and the points raised by the petitioner has completely being ignored which is gross injustice with the petitioner and fit case to be considered for judicial review. 4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that from the final order dated 31.12.2014 contained in Memo No. 4578 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur (Annexure-10 to the writ petition and Annexure-D to the counter affidavit filed on-behalf of respondent no. 4), it is crystal clear that the Enquiry Officer found the delinquent petitioner guilty and returned the file, but there is no whisper in the said order that either the enquiry report and the second show-cause had been issued upon the petitioner and the disciplinary authority suo motu passed the final order without granting adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend.

5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the appeal, he has challenged the same but the appellate authority, instead of verifying the correctness of the pleadings made in the memorandum of appeal by the petitioner has inserted in his order that show cause has been served whereas neither the show cause nor the enquiry report has ever been served upon him.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the memorandum also, the Director General of Police, Patna has also not considered the consistent pleading of the petitioner and rejected his memorial.

7. Counsel specifically pleading that the petitioner has neither been provided enquiry report nor has provided second show cause to him without granting opportunity to defend and in gross violation of natural justice, final order has been passed

8. Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that there were two inquiries took place in the present case. In the initial enquiry, the disciplinary authority on the basis of final defence show-cause submitted by the delinquenty petitioner to the effect that he has not given adequate opportunity to place his defence, it was decided to do the second enquiry and in the second enquiry petitioner has participated and filed his defence.

9. Counsel submits that the second show-cause notice has also been served upon the delinquent and granting full opportunity, the final order has been passed. Counsel further submits that in the order of appellate authority, it has been clearly acknowledged that opportunity to file second show cause has been granted to the petitioner and the order passed by the appellate authority is completely in accordance with law. Similarly, the order passed in memo is also passed in accordance with law, therefore, there is no need of any interference in the disciplinary proceedings.

10. Counsel for the respondent submits that vide Annexure-M, a letter written by the petitioner, it is very much clear that the delinquent has filed representation in which he has categorically stated that his init