IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6735 of 2010 Sri Krishna Kumar Pandey, son of Late Prayag Pandey, resident of village Demrutand, P.O. Morangi, P.S. Mufassil, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)……………………………………………….…….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Purnia Range, Purnia, P.O., P.S. & District Purnia. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Purnia, P.O., P.S. & District Purnia. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Saharsa, P.O., P.S. & District Saharsa…………………….Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s Manoj Tandon & Navin Kumar Singh, Advocates For the State: Mrs. Anita Sinha, G.P.No.9 **** 4 28.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. When the case was initially heard on 05.01.2011, the specific pleading of the petitioner made in paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the writ application was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court wherein it was asserted that memo of charge was not served on the petitioner, enquiry report was not served upon him and no second show cause notice was given to him to enable him to file representation in respect of the findings of the Enquiry Officer before the order of 2 punishment was issued against the petitioner dismissing him from service. It was also submitted that appeal and memorial of the petitioner were also dismissed without taking into account these gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice committed in the proceeding. In view of the specific stand of the petitioner, learned counsel for the State was allowed time to file counter affidavit after verifying the actual facts in respect of the said stand of the petitioner from the records. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case and it is admitted that at least the second show cause notice was not served upon the petitioner. In respect of the charges it is stated that memo of charges was served upon him. For non- service of second show cause notice, some explanation is given in the counter affidavit to the effect that since petitioner was transferred from one place to another in quick succession, the same could not be served upon him. 3 Since the departmental proceeding was being conducted against the petitioner for a major punishment, it was the responsibility of the respondents to comply with the Principles of Natural Justice at every stage of the proceeding before concluding the same and passing the order of punishment. Admittedly, the same has not been done. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Rule 825 (d) of the Bihar Police Manual, the impugned punishment order was not passed by the competent authority. He also submits that the rules of procedure laid down in Appendix 49 of the Bihar Police Manual Volume II1 had also to be followed in the proceeding at each and every stage and in the manner laid down, in the proceeding held against them, which also was not done. Since it is admitted that at least second show cause notice was not served upon the petitioner, punishment order against him cannot stand. Therefore, this Court is not required to go into the 4 provisions of the Bihar Police Manual to find as to in what respect the same has been complied with by the respondents, or not. In the circumstances, the punishment order as contained in Annexure- 1, dismissing the petitioner from service, the appellate order as contained in Annexure-2 and the order passed on his memorial as contained in Annexure-3 are quashed. Before his dismissal, petitioner was in service and his suspension has already been revoked much before. Therefore, as a consequence of quashing of these orders, petitioner shall be reinstated in service. But this will not prevent the respondents from proceeding against him afresh after full compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice and after complying with the provisions of the Bihar Police Manual, as may be applicable in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since punishment order is being quashed and the petitioner is being directed to be reinstated in service, he 5 should be held entitled for back wages. Memorial of the petitioner was rejected on 08.07.2006. Petitioner has moved this Court on 19.04.2010. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow back wages of the entire period of the petitioner. However, petitioner will be entitled to basic salary of the pay-scale from the date of filing of the writ application till date of his joining. This writ application is allowed in the manner as indicated above. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)