THE STATE OF BIHAR Vs. DHARMENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned Standing Counsel No. 8 for the appellant State of Bihar and Shri Mayanand Jha, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner. The appeal is reported to be delayed by 102 days.

(2.) We have considered the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application and we find that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned and the appeal shall be treated to be within time. I.A. No. 8634 of 2018 stands allowed accordingly.

(3.) The writ petition has been filed by the respondent-petitioner challenging his termination order from the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that the Inquiry proceedings preceding the termination are clearly vitiated, inasmuch as, the Inquiry Officer himself became the Presenting Officer, the memo of charge had not been issued by the Disciplinary Authority, the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police have been made the basis of punishment, and last but not the least, the main witness to the allegation in support of the charge, who is said to have actually tendered a bribe to the respondent petitioner, was neither produced nor examined.