IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.341 of 2004 SHEO PRASAD SAHU SON OF LATE LAXMAN RESIDENT OF KANDU MOHALLA CHOWK, P.O. AND P.S. DALTONGANJ, DISTRICT- PALAMU…….PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE D.I.G. POLICE, MAGADH RANGE, GAYA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AURANGABAD. 5. THE D.S.P., AURANGABAD. ……..RESPONDENTS. ----------- 8. 10.01.2011 The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the then Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, dated 14.3.2001 passed in Departmental Proceeding No. 12 of 2000, by which major punishment has been inflicted which punishment has not been interfered by the D.I.G. The petitioner’s contention in the writ petition is simple. He stated that for the aforesaid derelictions, while putting him under suspension, a proceeding was initiated against him while he was posted in the District of Aurangabad. He was immediately thereafter, transferred to the District of Rohtas, but he was not communicated anything rather while he was posted in the District of Aurangabad, his suspension was revoked upon his show cause filed. In other words, his contention is that, though charges were served upon him he filed his show cause. His suspension was revoked but thereafter, having been transferred to Rohtas District, he had no further intimation with regard to the proceedings. Accordingly, it is submitted that proceeding were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. Having received the punishment order, he filed an appeal specifically raising the issue of none service of notice before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority answered the issue in one line stating that the Superintendent - 2 - of Police has said that petitioner had been noticed, but the Appellate Authority did not choose to examine the records. In view of these pleadings this Court directed the State not only to file a counter affidavit but to produce the original records of the proceedings. The records have been produced and two counter affidavits filed, one by the S.P and one by the Appellate Authority. In regard to the grievance of the petitioner that no notice was served in the counter affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, it is merely stated that in spite of notice petitioner did not co- operate and nothing has been brought on record in either of the counter affidavits to show that notices were actually served on the petitioner. All that is being said that notices were issued. On examination of record the same position arises. It appears that while suspending the petitioner, notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause against initiation of the departmental proceedings. The petitioner showed cause and his suspension was revoked but departmental proceeding was initiated. From the date given in the writ petition, it is clear that when this order to initiate the departmental proceeding was passed, petitioner had been by that time transferred to Rohtas District. Records further disclosed that steps were taken to serve notice petitioner at Rohtas but in fact whether notices were at all issued much less served is not apparent from the records. There is no service report appended even though a specific issue was raised. No steps were taken to rebut the fact and bring it on record. In that view of the matter, the fact remains to be considered that a departmental proceeding was initiated so notices were ordered to - 3 - be issued to the petitioner but whether the notices were in fact issued and in fact served remains totally nebulous. In my view, once it was put in issue by the petitioner that no notice was served upon him, it was incumbent upon the respondents State to show from the records that not only notices were duly issued they were duly served. From examination of the records it is clear that there was an order for issuance of notice but whether in fact, notices were issued and served is not to be found on record. The Enquiry Officer assumes that he having passed order for issuance of notice, notice must have been issued and must have been served. This assumption in my view, in absence of facts to support is unfounded. That being so, this Court cannot even assume that notices were issued much less validly served. In such circumstances, there is no difficulty in holding that the proceedings in fact, were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. There being no valid service of notice on the petitioner. Thus the proceedings, the punishment are both procedurally invalid. There being serious infirmity in the procedure, this Court has no option but to set aside the order as passed in the said Departmental Proceeding No. 12 of 2000 and by the Appellate Authority and remad the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad to reconsider the matter expeditiously as the matter is already over ten years old. Needless to say that the proceeding should be concluded at the earliest not later than three months from the date petitioner produces a copy of this order before the Superintendent of Police and further needless to say that it would be subject to co operation of the petitioner in that regards. Upon - 4 - receipt of the order of this Court the Superintendent of Police would then appoint a fresh enquiry officer and who would then hear the matter in accordance with law. With these observations the writ petition is allowed. Devendra/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)