ABHAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for grant of the following relief/s:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 28/11/1994, against a sanctioned vacant post following the due recruitment process. Counsel submits that while the petitioner was posted as Constable at Rail Police Kendra, Patna, he was falsely implicated in a criminal case at the behest of higher officials. Counsel submits that the petitioner was arrested on 8/1/2022 near Patna Junction and accordingly, FIR has been lodged against him bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No. 10 of 2022 dtd. 8/1/2022 under Sec. 37(b)(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Counsel submits that though, the petitioner was arrested on the allegation that he was in the state of intoxication consuming liquor, but this fact was not correct and on the basis of breath analyzer report without collecting blood sample and urine sample, the petitioner was arrested and subsequently, suspended vide Rail District Order no. 43 of 2022 dtd. 15/1/2022. Counsel submits that thereafter, his suspension was revoked vide Memo No. 659 dtd. 9/3/2022. He further submits that no preliminary enquiry was undertaken and direction for initiation of the departmental proceeding has been made. In the departmental proceeding bearing Disciplinary Proceeding No. 02 of 2022, charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 31/1/2022, alleging that he was found in the state of intoxication. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was appointed and the petitioner was directed to file his reply, which he has submitted on 11/2/2022. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceeding and oral evidence of the witness taken place, but petitioner was not granted any opportunity to cross examine the three witnesses. Counsel submits that the petitioner was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer, which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report and the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Authority who issued a second show cause to the petitioner vide Memo No. 650 dtd. 8/3/2022. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause, but the Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment upon the petitioner contained in Memo No. 1101 dtd. 6/5/2022 (Annexure P/8), by which, the petitioner was dismissed from the service, which is in complete violation of principles of natural justice. It was also directed that no payment be made to the petitioner apart from the payment already made during the service period.