IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7977 of 2008 Kapildeo Singh, SON OF LATE MUNSI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PATHAK CHAK, P.S. KARPI, DISTRICT- ARWAL :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA. 4. THE S.S.P., PATNA :---RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S. Santosh Kumar Sinha-2, Arvind Prasad Singh, Vidya Nand Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. kS.B.N. Singh, A.C. to G.P. VI. ======= 3. 29.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, also perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1-4 duly affirmed by Sri Amit Kumar, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as a Constable. He has filed this writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service dated 27.2.2006, Annexure-6. He has also challenged the order dated 16.3.2007, Annexure-8 and 12.12.2007, Annexure- 10 dismissing his appeal and memorial filed against the aforesaid order of dismissal. It appears petitioner was proceeded against vide charge-sheet dated 23.8.1991, Annexure-1, perusal whereof indicates that petitioner is alleged to have cheated Triyug Rai of Rs. 23,00/- on the promise of providing employment to his son Ashok Rai. He is also alleged to have cheated others but the name of others is not provided in the charge-sheet. Having received the copy of the charge-sheet, Annexure-1 petitioner filed his written defence on 03.9.1991 requesting the Enquiry officer to grant him copies of the different documents enumerated in the charge-sheet. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that aforesaid request of the petitioner for grant of documents was never considered by the Enquiry Officer. He merrily proceeded with the enquiry without serving any notice of the enquiry proceeding to the petitioner. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that neither Triyug Rai nor his son Ashok Rai named in the charge-sheet was ever examined by the Enquiry Officer in the presence of the petitioner. 2 Enquiry Officer, however, submitted his report before the disciplinary authority on the basis of which second show-cause notice dated 01.07.1995, Annexure-4 was served on the petitioner without enclosing the enquiry-report. Such statement has been made in paragraph-27 of the writ petition which has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. Having received the second show- cause notice petitioner filed his reply dated 30.09.1995, Annexure-5 again reiterating the submission which he had made in his written defence dated 03.09.1991 and further submitted that the witnesses named in the charge-sheet were never examined by the Enquiry Officer in his presence as he was never given any notice to appear in the departmental proceeding. 3. Aforesaid case of the petitioner has been disputed in paragraph-20 of the counter affidavit by stating that petitioner was served with the notice to appear in the departmental proceeding. In support of the statement made in paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit neither any details of the notice and receipt has been mentioned in the said paragraph nor the notice and receipt showing service of notice for the appearance in the departmental proceeding has been annexed with the counter affidavit. In the circumstances, I am not to rely on the bald statement made in paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit. Dismissal order having been passed without examining the charge-sheet witnesses in presence of the petitioner as also without serving Enquiry-Report on him, same suffers from the vice of arbitrariness as also infracts sub-clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Order rejecting the appeal and memorial having not considered the aforesaid submission of the petitioner that dismissal order was passed without giving him opportunity to cross-examine the charge-sheet witnesses as also after serving the documents referred to in the charge-sheet is also fit to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Enquiry Officer who should proceed with the matter in accordance with law after giving notice to the petitioner for appearing in the departmental proceeding and thereafter examine 3 Triyug Rai, his son and his other family members in support of the allegation made in the charge-sheet. From the impugned dismissal order itself it appears that petitioner was initially placed under suspension under District Order no. 5558/91 dated 25.06.1991 but according to counsel for the petitioner his suspension was revoked after ten months. Salary of the petitioner for the suspension period shall be subject to the result of the proceeding which should be concluded in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before Disciplinary Authority. For the present petitioner shall be reinstated in service but his reinstatement shall be subject to the result of the aforesaid proceeding. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. ( V. N. Sinha, J.)