MURLIDHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State-respondents. The pleadings are complete and with the consent of the parties, this writ application is disposed of by this judgment and order.

(2.) The factual exposes' are that the petitioner, who was a Constable was proceeded against departmentally for the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet (Annexure-1) dated 16.09.2011. The enquiry in the proceedings was conducted and after hearing the petitioner and considering the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 21.10.2011 (Annexure-4), whereby the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges. The said enquiry report was considered by the respondent-Superintendent of Police, who after differing with the findings in the enquiry report has passed the order dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure-5) imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment in salary for six months upon the petitioner. The appeal thereafter has been dismissed by order dated 07.04.2012 (Annexure-6) Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed this writ application.

(3.) The solitary submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-Superintendent of Police before passing the impugned order dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure-5) did not issue notice to the petitioner granting him opportunity of hearing. It has been propounded that once the respondent-Superintendent of Police disagreed with the findings in the enquiry report and proposed to impose the punishment of stoppage of increment, which is a major punishment according to Rule 824 of the Bihar Police Manual, he ought to have granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend the findings in the enquiry report, which were in his favour.