IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5142 of 2007 SHAILENDRA KUMAR @ SHAILENDRA KUMAR-1, SON OF LATE RAMBRIKSH PASWAN R/O VILL. DESNA P.S. ASTHAWAN IN THE DISTRICT OF NALANDA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TIRHUT RANGE, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VAISHALI. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SADAR, HAZIPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF VAISHALI. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, AC to SC-22. -------------- 03. 03.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Sub-Inspector of Police and was attached to Raghopur police station. He is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.2400 dated 5.6.2006, Annexure-3 whereunder after conclusion of departmental proceeding no.27/05 initiated under Rule 828(C) of the Bihar Police Manual he has been punished by reducing his pay to the minimum of scale admissible to the Sub- Inspector of Police for a period of two years. He is also aggrieved by the appellate order bearing Memo No.1569 dated 26.12.2006 passed by the D.I.G., Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur affirming the order dated 5.6.2006. 2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that punishment imposed on him is even more severe than the punishment imposed on the leader of the task force constituted to solve the kidnapping. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that without serving any charge memo and the enquiry report on the petitioner he has been visited with punishment under order dated 5.6.2006, against which he filed appeal raising the aforesaid submission but the appellate authority also did not consider the submission and dismissed the appeal. From the writ petition it does not appear that petitioner has made any statement that the charge sheet and the enquiry report was not served on him before passing the punishment order. In the circumstances, instead of going into the merit of the two orders, I grant liberty to petitioner to again approach the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur, who should call for the record and verify for himself whether memo of charge and the enquiry report was served on the petitioner and if memo of charge and the enquiry report were served on the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why he be not punished on the 3 basis of the finding recorded against him in the departmental proceeding, the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur shall reject the request of the petitioner to reconsider the matter but in case, memo of charge and the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner the memo of charge be served on the petitioner with liberty to him to file his written defence, which should be considered in accordance with law. Necessary compliance of this order be made by the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur. It may be stated here that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is serious as it is alleged that investigation in the abduction reached dead end because of the petitioner and others to follow the direction of the Supervising Authority. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)