IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5451 of 2000 ARUN KUMAR THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr Manish Kumar and Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Advocates For the State : Mr Rakesh Kumar Singh, JC to SC 6 ----- 6. 04.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as the officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station where the occurrence took place. He was proceeded against departmentally when punishment of dismissal was imposed on 2.3.1989 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the disciplinary authority. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed on 23.5.1990 by the Zonal Inspector General of Police. In the interregnum certain developments with regard to one of the charges against the petitioner took place which the petitioner thought was favorable to him, and therefore he filed a fresh appeal or what may be called a second appeal before the Director General of Police, Bihar. The Director General of Police by order dated 12.3.2001 declined to entertain the appeal holding that the matter had been adequately considered by the Zonal Inspector General of Police and who had already rejected the appeal. That there was no provision for a second appeal. In view of the nature of the order to be passed presently, this Court does not consider it proper to take note of the facts of the case except to the extent necessary so as to enable the Director General of Police to have a clean slate and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. The petitioner was proceeded against on three charges; one related to the release of two persons kept in custody for one day on suspicion, alleged to be persons with antecedents whom the petitioner wrongly let off. Inevitably linked with this charge was the alleged false attribution by the petitioner to one of the three persons arrested i.e. Mahendra Singh of possessing fire arms when the charge was that the same was recovered from Makeshewar Singh one of the aforesaid two persons with antecedents. The third charge was that when the Inspector, an authority superior in rank, came to the Police Station and asked to peruse the case diary the petitioner was abusive towards him and threatened him to leave. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Ganesh Prasad Singh assailing the order of the Director General of Police dated 12.3.2001 submitted that the Director General of Police has refused to exercise his statutory powers which makes the order arbitrary. That the Zonal Inspector General of Police was not an appellate authority to decide the appeal. That for administrative convenience the office of the Zonal Inspector General may have been created was a distinct matter from the powers and duties specifically vested in the Director General of Police under the Police Manual. The power to dispose the appeal has been conferred on the Director General of Police against an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. He next urged that subsequent to the order of punishment certain developments had taken place with regard to a part of the charges inasmuch as Mahendra Singh has been chargesheeted under the Arms Act and sanction for his prosecution has been given by the District Magistrate also. He relies on a judgement of this Court reported ion 1992(1) PLJR 502 (Ram Anugrah Singh Vrs State of Bihar & ors.) The objection of the State that Zonal Inspector General of Police was equally competent to decide such appeal has been adequately considered by a Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Anugrah Singh (Supra) relied upon by the petitioner. On consideration of the statutory provisions of Rules 4 and 851 of the Police Manual this Court has held that the power is vested in the Director General of Police to dispose of the appeal against the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police. The argument that this power had been delegated to the Zonal Inspector General of Police was expressly rejected in view of the statutory provisions. In that case also the impugned order passed by the Zonal Inspector General had been quashed as being without jurisdiction with consequent direction to the Director General of Police to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law. The only appropriate order, therefore, to be now passed in the present case is to direct the Director General of Police, Bihar, respondent no. 3, to decide the appeal petition of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law by fresh and independent application of mind on facts and materials including subsequent developments without considering or discussing the order of the Zonal Inspector General of Police and the reasons on which the same order may be founded. Let such fresh decision be taken by the Director General of Police, Bihar within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)