MANISH PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Vide Memo No 1411 dtd. 5/4/2022, which has been communicated to the petitioner Manish Prajapati of CWJC No 1638 of 2024 through the Superintendent of Police, Kishanganj by the Assistant Director (Training), Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir vide its Memo No 1424 dtd. 6/4/2022 whereby and where under the petitioner Manish Prajapati has been dismissed from the services and in CWJC No 1111 of 2024, petitioner Skant Kumar Gupta has also been dismissed as per the order contained in Memo No 1410 dtd. 5/4/2022 which has been communicated to him through Superintendent of Police, Katihar by the Assistant Director (Training), Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir vide his Memo No 1423 dtd. 6/4/2022. Against the said order of termination, both the petitioners preferred departmental appeal as well as memorial which have also been dismissed. Hence, both these petitions have been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the order of termination, order passed by the appellate authority and order passed by the authority in the memorial.

(3.) Brief facts of both the petitions are that the petitioner Manish Prajapati and Skant Kumar were selected for the post of Police Sub Inspector and joined their services on 1/6/2019. On 4/2/2021, they were sent to Training Center, Bihar Special Armed Police No 4, Dumraon for basic training. After completion of training, both have appeared for outdoor examinations/tests and also were declared successful. Internal examination was scheduled from 31/5/2021 to 14/6/2021. Allegedly two days prior to the scheduled examination when the CCTV camera was being installed, both the petitioners and one another person allegedly tampered the camera and on that basis, both the petitioners were debarred from appearing at the final examination. Explanation was called for from the petitioners. They submitted their response to the show cause. However, without considering the response submitted by the petitioners herein, a charge memo was served upon them. Enquiry officer as well as presenting officer were appointed. During the course of enquiry, in the matter of Manish Prajapati, 5 witnesses were examined by the Department and in the matter of Skant Kumar Gupta, 7 witnesses were examined by the Department. Subsequently, the enquiry officer, on the basis of material available on record, found the charges proved against both the petitioners in both the separate enquiry which was conducted against them. On the basis of enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice to the petitioners in both the cases and subsequently passed the order of dismissal in both the cases which has been assailed by way of departmental appeal as well as memorial but the same also stood dismissed.