IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2408 of 2003 Rajendra Kumar Pandey, Son of Uddayanand Pandey, Resident of village Chakwara P.O. Wara Chakiya, P.S. Pipra, District Champaran. ……… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The D.G. Cum I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commandant B.M.P. 9 Jamalpur ……… Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Sri Pranav Kumar 7. 23.06.2010 Petitioner, a constable in the Bihar Military Police, was charged with having established illicit relationship with a married woman with a promise to enter into matrimony with her. The details of the charge and the allegations are available on record as Annexure-1. An inquiry was held, finding of guilt recorded by the inquiry officer and based on the said finding, the disciplinary authority namely, the Commandant, Bihar Military Police, 9, Jamalpur imposed penalty of reversion in service taking a holistic view of the matter instead of imposing punishment of dismissal. After passing of the order, it seems that the file was forwarded to the D.I.G., who was not satisfied with the quantum of punishment imposed - 2 - upon the petitioner. He recommended for dismissal from service and forwarded his opinion to the D.G., Police under Rule 853-A of the Bihar Police Manual. The Director General of Police vide Annexure-5 dated 26.8.2000 agreed with the recommendation of the D.I.G. and on having rejected the second show cause of the petitioner dismissed him from service. Petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the said decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision dated 30.10.2000 rendered in the case of one Manoj Kumar Sharma. According to him in an identical situation, a Bench of this Court for the reasons indicated therein interfered with the order of enhancement of punishment on the ground that the Director General of Police has not given his reasons for disagreeing with the order of punishment of disciplinary authority. Failure to provide the reasons and merely stating that the show cause was not found proper was not good enough for enhancing the quantum of punishment. The said decision is Annexure- 6 to the writ application. The Court has gone through the said decision - 3 - and the ratio laid down therein supports the petitioner to the extent that the impugned order does not indicate the reasons why the Director General of Police had come to a conclusion that enhancement of the punishment was the order of the day. Learned counsel representing the State submits that the order came to be passed looking at the background of the seriousness of the charges made against the petitioner which was also found to be true during inquiry. A person belonging to the police force cannot be allowed such misconduct and acts which the petitioner had done. It is a fit case, where a harsher punishment of dismissal was called for instead of reversion. The Court has nothing to opine on the submission made by the counsel for the State on the larger issue keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Bench in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma which is on record. Since in similar and identical situation the order of enhanced punishment was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Director General for fresh consideration to provide reasons for enhancing the punishment, the - 4 - petitioner has made out a case for interference. The writ application is allowed. Annexure-5 stands quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Director General of Police for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. S.S. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)