GORAKH NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexures -12 and 14 being the order of dismissal and the order of rejection of appeal respectively. It is not disputed that the petitioner was Officer -in -Charge of Jogta Police Station in the district of Dhanbad. The penal consequences with which he has been visited arise out of two charges framed against him by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, after cause had been shown and inquiry held and conducted by one Saligram Mahto, who was Assistant Public Prosecutor at Dhanbad. The Inquiring Officer found the petitioner guilty which resulted in order of dismissal by the Deputy Inspector General and its approval by the Inspector General by dismissal of the appeal.

(2.) Several points were raised of various due and value by learned counsel for the petitioner, but for the purposes of this application two points are weighty enough to annihilate the order of dismissal.

(3.) The cumulative effect of the aforesaid two grounds is that the application must be allowed. But before I part with the judgment. I would also like to mention a point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Assistant Public Prosecutor of Dhanbad had been appointed the Inquiring Officer. The allegation it appears was that he had not sent the memo of evidence and had not recorded the first information report in a case which was being prosecuted by the Assistant Pub(sic) Prosecutor concerned Shri Saligram Mahto. Although no objection was raised by this petitioner at the initial stage even half heartedly in this application, yet I must express my deepest regret at the procedure adopted. I do not mean to say that Shri Saligram Mahto was a person who was biased or was not a person who would be just and fair yet his association with the police case concerned was enough to create a reasonable fear of bias in the mind of the petitioner.