IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2927 of 2007 Deoratan Ram, S/O- SRI BAJRANGI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILL+P.O.-BARAGAON, P.S.-AZIMABAD, DISTT- BHOJPUR AT ARRAH AT PRESENT POSTED IN B.M.P.-5, PATNA :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. D.I.G. OF POLICE, B.M.P., MILITARY POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, PATNA. 4. COMMANDANT, B.M.P.-5, PATNA :---RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- 3. 09.09.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. At the relevant time petitioner served as Driver Constable in B.M.P.-5, Patna. He has challenged the Force Order dated 12.5.2006, Annexure-6, whereunder after conclusion of the departmental proceeding his two increments have been withheld without cumulative effect which is equivalent to three black marks and he has been reverted to the cadre of General Constable. Petitioner has also challenged the order bearing Memo No. 1024 dated 05.12.2006 passed by the D.I.G., Military Police (Central Zone), Patna, Annexure-8, whereunder the aforesaid punishment order has been affirmed. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before passing the aforesaid two orders petitioner was served with the charge-sheet bearing Memo No. 467 dated 10.2.2005, Annexure-2 asserting that on 25.1.2005 at 5 A.M. he was driving TATA 709 vehicle bearing registration no. BR1G 2189 in a negligent 2 manner causing injury to a constable who later on died. In response to the aforesaid charge-sheet petitioner submitted his written defence refuting the charge stating that he never drove the vehicle on the relevant date and time in a negligent manner but the accident took place on account of the heavy fog. The Enquiry Officer having considered the written defence submitted Enquiry Report holding the petitioner guilty of negligence in driving the vehicle on 25.1.2005 at 5 A.M. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid Enquiry Report was never served on the petitioner and statement to that effect has been made in paragraph-21 of the writ petition. 4. The State-respondents have not filed counter affidavit and thereby has accepted the position that petitioner was not served with the Enquiry Report holding him guilty of negligent driving. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that for the failure of the Disciplinary Authority to serve the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer the punishment imposed on the petitioner is vitiated for the reasons of violation of principles of natural justice infracting proviso to sub-clause (2) of Article 311 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this connection it is submitted that had the petitioner been served with the Enquiry Report he would have explained to the Disciplinary Authority that the finding of guilt was wholly inappropriate in view of 3 the fact that in the morning of 25.1.2005 there was heavy fog and nothing was visible and in order to avert a major accident, brakes were applied which led to the fall of the Constable who was standing in the deck of the vehicle and on account of such fall he suffered head injury which ultimately proved fatal. 6. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State I am satisfied that failure to serve the Enquiry Report on the petitioner has caused serious prejudice to him in explaining his case before the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, I set aside the punishment order dated 12.5.2006, Annexure-6 and the appellate order dated 05.12.2006, Annexure-8. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to serve on the petitioner the Enquiry Report and to ask the petitioner as to why he be not punished in the light of the findings recorded therein and pass appropriate orders after due consideration of the cause shown by the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)