IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4147 of 2024 ======================================================

Raj Kumar son of Rajendra Prasad Resident of Village Kamal Bigha, Post Bilari, P.S. Katri Sarai District Nalanda PIN 805130 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director General of Police -cum-I.G. Police, Bihar, Patna

3. The I.G. of Police Magadh Zone, Gaya

4. The S.S.P. Gaya at Gaya ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mayanand Jha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Gaurav Prakash, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, GP-20 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 09-02-2026 Heard learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The present application has been filed for “…… for setting aside the order of termination/discharge, vide Gaya District Order No.2420/2015 as contained in Memo No. 3778 dated 12^th November 2015 (Annexure-P-5) issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya as well as Appellate order contained in Memo No. 395 dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Magadh Zone, Gaya (Annexure P8), on the Appeal preferred by the petitioner whereby he rejected the appeal against his termination from service as a constable in Bihar Police and further to direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.”

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the termination of the petitioner was effected without initiation of any departmental proceeding, vide Gaya District Order No. 2420, as contained in Memo No. 3778 dated

12.11.2015 (as contained in Annexure P/5).

4. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer to the extent that parity be maintained with a similarly situated person, namely Arvind Kumar Singh, who had challenged his order of termination by filing CWJC No. 1071 of 2023, wherein, vide order dated 08.05.2023, the orders passed by the original as well as the appellate authorities were set aside, subject to certain terms and conditions. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the case of the present petitioner is identical to that of Arvind Kumar Singh (supra) and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to similar treatment.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein it has been stated that the orders passed by the original authority as well as the appellate authority were passed strictly in accordance with law and do not call for any interference by this Hon’ble Court. He, however, fairly submits that it is correct that a similarly situated person had approached this Hon’ble Court by filing CWJC No. 1071 of 2023, which was disposed of by a conditional order.

6. In light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires to this Court that parity deserves to be maintained with the present petitioner as well. It further transpires to this Court that in the case of Arvind Kumar Singh (supra), this Hon’ble Court was pleased to observe in paragraphs 9 and 10 as under:—

10. In CWJC No. 4515 of 2017, having considered the entire materials and submissions of the parties, this Court allowed the writ application, the operative part of the order reads as under:-

“25. In the nature of the submissions and the materials present on record and there being an admitted position that no Presenting Officer was appointed, this Court sets aside the impugned order of dismissal and the appellate order in all these writ applications and directs the concerned disciplinary authority to conduct the disciplinary proceeding from the stage of inquiry afresh