IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20642 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Rakesh Kumar Son Of Sri Sukhu Ram Resident Of Village Kaile Chak, P.O. Kharika, P.S. Bidupur, District Vaishali At Hazipur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General Cum Inspector General Of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The D.I.G. Of Police, Military Police Central Zone, Patna. 4. Commandant, B.M.P.2, Dehri. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. K.P. Gupta Sc16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 2 15-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner a Constable in the Bihar Military Police, is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 9.3.2010 visiting him with the stoppage of increments for six months equivalent to one black mark, but which shall not affect his future salary. The order has been affirmed in appeal on 22.12.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the departmental proceedings were initiated at the behest of Havildar Ramruchi Tiwary against whom the petitioner had earlier made a complaint. Despite a report Patna High Court CWJC No.20642 of 2011 (2) dt.15-12-2011 2 against the said Havildar no action has been taken against him. Learned Counsel next submits that the witnesses during the enquiry in their deposition have not fully supported the charge. It was lastly contended that no separate show cause notice for the proposed punishment had been given before issuance of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application to submit that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any procedural irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings causing him prejudice so as to warrant interference by the Court. The allegations were that while deputed on anti extremist duties the petitioner proceeded on work with 60 cartridges in place of 100 cartridges. The order of the disciplinary authority adequately reflects that witnesses have been examined and the petitioner was given full opportunity to cross-examine them also. The Writ Court in exercise of powers under Article-226 cannot enter into re-appreciation of evidence collected during the departmental enquiry. It appears from the memo of appeal that at pargraph- 6 the petitioner had specifically raised the objection that no second show cause notice for the proposed punishment was given. The order of the disciplinary authority dated 9.3.2010 does not contain any recital that this procedure was Patna High Court CWJC No.20642 of 2011 (2) dt.15-12-2011 3 followed. The appellate order does not deal with this objection and cryptically rejects the appeal holding that there was no merit in it. Rather than to ask for a counter affidavit at this stage, the matter is remanded to the appellate authority to pass fresh orders on the question whether a second show cause notice for the proposed punishment was given to the petitioner or not. If the appellate authority finds that it was not complied with, the matter shall have to be remanded to the disciplinary authority. In the event that the appellate authority opines to the contrary, the order of punishment shall require no interference. To facilitate such fresh orders by the appellate authority, pending disposal by it, the order of punishment is directed to be kept in abeyance. Let the appellate authority pass such appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of four weeks. The writ application stands disposed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)