CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9308 OF 1997 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; RAJ BALLABH SINGH-----------------------Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS-----------------Respondents ----------- For The Petitioner : Mr.R.GRIYAGHEY, Advocate For The Respondent :Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, A.A.G. VI P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA Mridula Mishra,J:- This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 31.12.1996 contained in memo no. 4009 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nawadah in a departmental proceeding initiated against him. By the impugned order the petitioner has been awarded punishment of dismissal from service. 2. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that he was not served with the inquiry report and the second show cause notice with the proposed punishment. On account of this procedural irregularity, serious punishment like dismissal from service is fit to be quashed, being arbitrary and illegal. The impugned order has also been challenged being violative of Bihar Police Manual Rules as well as Rule of natural justice. 2 3. Petitioner was a constable and attached with M.L.A. Sri Deonandan Prasad, as his personal Bodyguard. On 5.6.1991 the petitioner along with Deonandan Prasad, M.L.A. had gone to Biharsharif. During his stay at Biharsharif, he had gone to his residential house and subsequently made a complaint regarding snatching of his service revolver provided by the Police Department. Biharsharif Police case No. 202 of 1991 was instituted against the petitioner under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution story, as disclosed by the petitioner, was that he was overpowered by 4-5 persons while visiting the residential house. The dacoits assaulted him, he became unconscious and his service revolver was snatched away. During investigation the stolen service revolver was recovered from a member of criminal gang. On conclusion of the investigation, the allegation regarding dacoity was found to be false and a final form was submitted. Subsequently a departmental proceeding No. 50 of 1992 was initiated against the petitioner. Charges were framed and furnished him. Show cause was submitted by the petitioner and finally on submission of the inquiry report the charges were found to be proved. Punishment of dismissal from service was awarded by the disciplinary authority. Appeal preferred by the petitioner before Deputy Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya was allowed, punishment order passed by S.P. Nawadah was set aside and m,atters 3 remitted back to the conducting Officer, with a direction to re-conduct the proceeding and conclude within three months. The proceeding was re- conducted. Inquiry report furnished to the petitioner. Second show cause notice was also issued and finally, against punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to the petitioner. Appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 5. The writ application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary authority. The allegation which has been made by the petitioner regarding non- supply of inquiry report and second show cause notice, have been denied in the counter affidavits filed by respondent no.3, the Superintendent of Police, Nawadah and Respondent No.4 Superintendent of Police, Gumla. At the relevant time, when departmental proceeding was being re-conducted, the petitioner was posted at Gumla, as such the inquiry report and the second show cause notice was served upon him through the Superintendent of Police Gumla. In Paras 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit respondent No.3 the Superintendent of Police, Nawadah has stated that second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner through Superintendent of Police Gumla, as he was posted in Gumla District. Despite the second show cause notice and giving sufficient time, second show cause was not submitted by the petitioner. 4 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Gumla at Para 7, it has been stated that a letter from Superintendent of Police, Nawada vide his memo no. 3490/R.O. dated 28.11.1996 was received in the Office of R.S.M., Gumla and it was endorsed to R.S.I. II Smt. Sneh Lata Toppno for service to the petitioner. As per Report of R.S.I.-II the said letter was handed over to the petitioner personally but she could not obtain any receipt from the petitioner in good faith. 7. Considering these two statements, the allegation made by the petitioner that second show cause notice was not issued and served upon him is not correct. 8. Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that assertion regarding procedural irregularity is incorrect, as such there is no ground for interference with the order passed in a disciplinary proceeding. So far requirement of second show cause notice is concerned, as per Rule 828 Clause 6 Volume (3) Appendix 49 of Bihar Police Manual, there is no requirement of second show cause, in case of satisfaction of person authorized to conduct disciplinary inquiry. So far Article 311 of the Constitution of India is concerned, earlier there was such provision for requirement of second show cause notice but after its amendment, there is no requirement for issuing second show cause notice regarding the proposed punishment. However to 5 observe rule of natural justice delinquent was provided sufficient opportunity to defend himself. Only after issuing second show cause notice punishment of dismissal from service had been awarded to the petitioner. 9. Considering the fact that second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and that was duly served upon him. I do not find any violation of rule of natural justice, while awarding punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner. Being in a disciplined service like police service, the petitioner was found indulging in criminal activities. Such serious charge being proved, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, awarding punishment of dismissal from service. 10. The writ application is dismissed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) Patna High Court Dated the 13th May, 2011 A.Kumar/NAFR