IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7431 of 2006 MITHILESH SHARMA, SON OF RAM KUMAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – KAIRWA DARIAPUR, P.S.-GHOSI, DISTRICT- GAYA ……………………. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 2. DIG, SAHABAD RANGE, DEHIR-ON-SONE, ROHTAS 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAIMUR, BHABHUA 4. SERJANT MAJOR, POLICE LINE, MOHANIA …………………. RESPONDENTS For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Suresh Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv. For the State: Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to SC-16 ----------- 05. 06.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner prayer is for quashing of Order, dated 28.07.2004, contained in Memo No. 2439 (Annexure-5), whereby a punishment of dismissal from service has been awarded in a Departmental Proceeding initiated against him in the year 1992. Further prayer is for quashing of the Order, passed by the Appellate Authority, DIG, Sahabad Range, affirming the Order passed in the Departmental Proceeding, vide Memo No. 304, dated 30.03.2005 (Annexure-7) as well as Order, dated 30.01.2006, whereby memorial preferred by the petitioner against the appellate order has also been dismissed. 2 Departmental Proceeding No. 16/92 was initiated against the petitioner, framing four charges, which were as follows: (1) from 03.10.1988 to 15.10.1988, petitioner remained absent from his duty on unauthorized leave; (2) A Comman was handed over to him for presenting him at Police Centre Dehri on 15.10.1988, which was never produced. (3) On the basis of a forged letter, he tired to cheat one Binay Kumar Singh and caught red- handed, for which Dhanbad P. S. Case No. 732 was instituted for the offence, punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and he was taken into custody. (4) On 09.11.1988, petitioner tried to cheat one Amar Nath Prasad and cheated him of Rs. 15,00/- on the basis of a forged letter. Petitioner’s case is that the criminal case, instituted against him, ended in his acquittal vide judgment dated 18.11.1992, passed in G. R. Case No. 3315 of 1988, Trial No. 328 of 1992. The petitioner was acquitted of all the charges as not a single witness turned up before the Court to support 3 case of prosecution. So far Departmental Proceeding is concerned, on receiving the charges, petitioner filed an application for supply of all relevant documents, which was never supplied to him and he could not file his show-cause. The Departmental Proceeding remained pending till 2003. In the meantime, he was acquitted in the criminal case. Judgment passed in criminal case was brought before the Conducting Officer in the Departmental Proceeding. The Conducting Officer, vide Order, dated 02.04.2003, contained in Memo No. 911 asked the petitioner to appear for submitting his show- cause. Petitioner, file a list of witness for their examination, but not a single witness turned up for their examination before the Conducting Officer. Enquiry report was submitted without there being any evidence in support of charges framed. A second show-cause notice was issued vide order, dated 30.03.2010 to the petitioner, against the proposed punishment of dismissal. Finally, the dismissal order was passed vide Annexure-5, without the charges framed against the petitioner being proved. In the Counter Affidavit, simply it has been stated that following all procedure, the petitioner 4 was awarded punishment of dismissal from service, since the charges were framed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that serious punishment like dismissal from service could have been awarded only when Departmental Proceeding would have been conducted properly. The petitioner was never supplied any document, for which he had asked for. The petitioner also gave list of witnesses, whom he wanted to examine in order to prove the charges unfounded, but not a single witness was examined. Simply because charges framed were serious, it was not sufficient for passing an order of dismissal. Petitioner’s case is that going beyond all norms and rules, order dated 28.07.2004, contained in Memo No. 2439 was passed, awarding punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner. The Appellate Authority and the authority before whom, the memorial was preferred, affirmed the order passed by Disciplinary Authority, which shows that there was total non-consideration by all these authorities. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find that the punishment 5 was awarded to the petitioner in the Departmental Proceeding, following the procedure as provided under the Rules, for awarding serious punishment like dismissal from service. The impugned order contained in Annexure-5, 7 and 8, thus, can be held to be legal and sustainable. All three orders are quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in its service immediately on production / communication of this Order. Petitioner will be entitled for consequential benefits on account of his reinstatement. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)