SYEDIQBALHAIDERGILANI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application it directed against the orders contained in annexures 4, 6 and 8 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Revisional Authority and the appellate authority affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority inflicting punishment of dismissal against the petitioner, who was a literate constable in the district police posted at Nawadah.

(2.) It is contended by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner that a proceeding was started against the petitioner on the charge of absence without leave. At the initial stage, the petitioner was given notice and he, filed his show cause and the proceeding was conducted by one Mahegh Prasad, Dy. Superintendent of Police. Later on, his transfer from Nawadah, the entire file relating to proceeding was returned back to the Superintendent of Police, Nawadah on 5 9.1983 for appointment of some other conducting Officer. On 19.9.83 the Superintendent of Police, Nawabah entrusted the proceeding to some other officer In this regard learned Counsel referred to the order-sheet of the proceeding, a photo copy of which has been annexed as 'annexure 'A' to the first counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State.

(3.) It has been contended that thereafter as it appears from the order sheet, the notices were directed to be issued to the petitioner as well as to some witnesses, but there is nothing to show that the said notices were served upon the petitioner. In paragraph 15 of the writ application the petitioner inter alia, has stated that since after the transfer of the then conducting officer he met the Superintendent of Police, Nawadah several times for getting the next date in the proceeding, but he could not get the same. Further, it is stated that he was told that he would get notice of the date of hearing in the proceeding, but he did not receive any notice and on 17.8.84 all on a sudden a copy of the impugned order was served upon him.