IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3914 of 2005 ABHAY KUMAR RAM, son of Sri Suiami Bharan Ram, R.O.V+P.O. Pakri, P.S. Nawada Dist-Bhojpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through their Secretary Home Department(Police) Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police S.T.F. Bihar Patna. 3. The Superintendent of Police S.T.F Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner :-Mr. Manindra kumar, Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey. For the State :- Mr. Rajeev Lochan, A.C. to G.A-9. 6 01.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has challenged the order contained in memo No. 2889/S.T.F dated 26.10.2002, issued by the Superintendent of Police S.T.F Bihar, Patna, whereby he has been dismissed from the post of constable No. 958. Further prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 1045/S.T.F Bihar dated 10.11.2004 passed by the Inspector General S.T.F Bihar Patna, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to re-instate him on the post, with all consequential benefits. Impugned orders have been challenged by the petitioner on several grounds, such as the charges framed for initiating a departmental proceeding did not relate to his official duty as such could not have been considered as misconduct. Charge Nos. 1 and 2 framed for initiation of departmental proceeding were barred under Section 42 of the Police Act 1861 and charge No. 3 relating to using abusive word and pointing barrel of gun at another 2 constable in intoxicating, condition could not have been found to be proved unless the petitioner would have been subjected to clinical test, to ascertain the same, only on procurement of a medical report to this effect, such charge should have been framed. But the most relevant objection raised by the petitioner, for challenging impugned orders are non-observance of legal procedure for conducting departmental proceeding and for imposing major punishment like dismissal from service. Specific case of the petitioner is that he was never served with any enquiry report, no second show cause notice was issued to him regarding proposed punishment 2and without observing mandatory procedures, the order of dismissal from service was passed against him. This illegality was completely over looked even by the Appellate Authority. In order to examine the genuineness of petitioner’s contention and the original record connected with the departmental proceeding was called for. On perusal of the record connected with the departmental proceeding, allegation made by the petitioner regarding non-supply of enquiry report as well as non issuance of second show cause notice, disclosing to proposed punishment, is found to be correct. A government employee cannot be dismissed from his service in such casual manner even if the charges are very serious. Departmental enquiry has to be conducted, following procedure, in accordance with law, giving proper opportunity to the delinquent for defending himself. Supply of enquiry report is mandatory for the reason that the delinquent should come to know 3 the finding recorded by the Conducting Officer, in respect to the charges framed against him. In case the disciplinary authority is in agreement with the enquiry report, even then if major punishment like dismissal from service is going to be awarded, it is essential that show cause notice regarding proposed punishment should be issued to the delinquent, so that he could make an attempt to persuade the disciplinary authority for exonerating him from the charges. In case the disciplinary authority is in disagreement with the finding recorded by the Conducting Officer, it is essential that the disciplinary authority should assign reason, for such disagreement and issue second show cause notice to the delinquent with regard to the proposed punishment. In the case of the petitioner, the conducting officer had found the charges proved against the petitioner, despite this fact, it was essential that enquiry report should have been furnished to him and second show cause notice issued to him against the proposed punishment. This has not been done. This illegality itself is sufficient for quashing of order dated 26.10.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Police S.T.F Patna, dismissing the petitioner from the post of constable No. 958, as well as the order passed by the Inspector General S.T.F Bihar Patna, contained in memo No. 1045 dated 10.11.2004, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and affirming the order of punishment. The respondents are directed to furnish a copy of enquiry report to the petitioner giving him an opportunity to file a second show cause against the proposed punishment. Issue second 4 show cause notice to the petitioner intimating proposed punishment. Only on filing of second show cause notice within stipulated time by the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police S.T.F Bihar Patna will pass final order in the departmental proceeding. On account of quashing of the impugned order, petitioner will be reinstated, however, the respondents are free to pass any order of suspension against the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is again put under suspension he will be paid subsistence allowance for the entire period till the date final order is passed. This application is accordingly, allowed. Prakash ( Mridula Mishra, J.)