Patna High Court
Dheeraj Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 December, 2023
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.455 of 2018
======================================================
Dheeraj Kumar Son of Uday Kumar Sharma, Resident of Village- Koshi
College Road, Khagaria, Post- Koshi College, Thana- Chitragupta Nagar,
District- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Arwal.
4. The Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Officer on Special Duty, Central Selection Board (Constable
Recruitment), Bihar, Patna.
6. Dy. S.P. Head Quarter cum-Conducting Officer, Arwal.
7. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (D.I.G.) Magadh Range, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2783 of 2018
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Son of Arun Paswan, Resident of Village + P.O.-Bhaikh, P.S.-
Makhdumpur, District-Jehanabad, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas.
4. The Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Officer on Special Duty, Central Selection Board (Constable
Recruitment), Bihar, Patna.
6. The Dy. S.P. (H.Q.) Cum Conducting Officer, Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.455 of 2018 dt.04-12-2023
2/7
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2784 of 2018
======================================================
Ranjit Kumar Son of Devan Mahto, Resident of Village-Devghara, Chandra
Tola, P.O.-Amarpur, P.S.-Medni Chauki, District-Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. THe Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Muzzafarpur.
4. The Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Officer on Special Duty, Central Selection Board Constable
Recruitment, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Dy. S.P. (H.Q.) Cum Conducting Officer, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 455 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Avinash, Advocate
Ms. Alka Singh, Advocate
Ms. Deepali Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K.Verma , AAG-3
Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3
For the CSB : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2783 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Avinash, Advocate
Ms. Alka Singh, Advocate
Ms. Deepali Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2784 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Avinash, Advocate
Ms. Alka Singh, Advocate
Ms. Deepali Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-12-2023
Patna High Court CWJC No.455 of 2018 dt.04-12-2023
3/7
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners of CWJC No.455 of 2018 and
CWJC No.2784 of 2018 were appointee on the post of constable
by virtue of advertisement No.1 of 2014 whereas the petitioner
of CWJC No.2783 of 2018 was appointee of advertisement
No.1 of 2012. In all three cases the issues directly and
substantially are identical, therefore, it has been decided to hear
all those cases together.
3. The petitioners in these cases are seeking
quashing the order of dismissal from their services . They were
selected as constable following the recruitment process vide
advertisement No.1 of 2014 and advertisement No.1 of 2012
respectively as mentioned and after joining started the work of
constable, but at latter stage it came to the knowledge of the
authorities that appointment of the petitioners had taken place
by virtue of commenting interpolation in the selection process
and, as such, the enquiry was set up and report has come in
which the petitioners were found guilty and after giving
opportunity to show-cause the disciplinary authority has passed
the orders of dismissal. The petitioners had preferred appeals.
Their appeals were also dismissed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.455 of 2018 dt.04-12-2023
4/7
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on
the judgment of Amit Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar and
Others decided in CWJC No.4515 of 2017 with six analogous
cases. The point of violation of Rule 17(14) of the C.C.A. Rules,
2005, have also been discussed in the petition by the petitioners
and same plea has been taken in the case of Amit Kumar
(supra) in which this Hon'ble Court has decided the case with
finding in paragraphs 21 and 25 which reads as under:-
"21. Having regard to the
submissions noted hereinabove and the
materials available on the record, this
Court finds that there is an admitted fact
that these petitioners were proceeded
against in a disciplinary proceeding in
which they have been dismissed from
service. In the said disciplinary
proceeding, there was no Presenting
Officer on behalf of the Department and
there is no denial of the fact that the
Inquiry Officer himself usurped the role of
the Presenting Officer which is in the teeth
sub-Rule (14) of Rule 17 of the Service
Rules.
25. In the nature of the
submissions and the materials present on
record and there being an admitted
position that no Presenting Officer was
Patna High Court CWJC No.455 of 2018 dt.04-12-2023
5/7
appointed, this Court sets aside the
impugned order of dismissal and the
appellate order in all these writ
applications and directs the concerned
disciplinary authority to conduct the
disciplinary proceeding from the stage of
inquiry afresh in accordance with the
procedures laid down under Rule 17 of the
Service Rule governing the employment of
these petitioners and take an appropriate
decision thereon within a period of four
months from the the date of
receipt/production of the copy of this
order."
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the
application and submits that non-availability of presenting
officer in the departmental proceeding shall not vitiate the
departmental proceeding due to the reason that in case of Board
of Directors, Himanchal Pradesh Transport Corporation
and Another Vs. K.C. Rahi reported in (2008) 11 Supreme
Court Cases 502, Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically
held that whether the non-compliance of principles of natural
justice avoiding service of notice has prejudiced the petitioner
or not. In the said case, the Court held that it has not prejudiced
the petitioners in any manner as the petitioners have participated
in the proceeding even if notice was not validly served. In view
Patna High Court CWJC No.455 of 2018 dt.04-12-2023
6/7
of this Court, this judgment shall not apply in present case due
to the reason that the notice is alleged not to be served upon the
delinquent but even then they have participated in the enquiry
proceeding and only due to this reason the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has decided that non-service has not actually prejudiced
the petitioner. But here in the present case, the situation is
completely different as there is mandatory compliance of Rule
17(14) of CCA Rules, 2005 has not been made and the said
issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Court in the case
of Upendra Pandit Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2023(4)
PLJR 568, in which the departmental proceeding conducted
without appointment of Presenting Officer was held to be
serious lapse.
6. It is made clear that this writ was allowed in
the light of decision made by this Court in the case of Amit
Kumar V. State of Bihar and Others passed in CWJC
No.4515 of 2017 only to conduct the disciplinary proceeding in
accordance with law in which the petitioners were directed to
fully cooperate, if not, the official shall be at liberty to take
decision in accordance with CCA Rules, 2005.
7. In this view of the matter and with a view to
maintain the parity, this Court allow all the three writ petitions
Patna High Court CWJC No.455 of 2018 dt.04-12-2023
7/7
setting aside their dismissal orders dated 31.10.2017,
29.03.2016
and 10.04.2017 passed by Superintendent of Police,
Arwal, Commandant, Bihar Military Police-2 Company Dehri
and Commandant BMP-7 respectively as well as appellate order
under Memo No.1506 dated 12.06.2018/01.06.2018, Memo
No.716 dated 02.09.2016 and Memo No.845 dated 08.08.2018
passed by D.I.G., Magadh Range, Gaya, D.I.G., B.M.P., Patna
and D.I.G., Muzaffarpur, North Division, Muzaffarpur Range,
respectively, in CWJC No.455 of 2018, CWJC No.2783 of 2018
and CWJC No.2784 of 2018 respectively, affirming the
dismissal with a direction for reinstatement of the petitioners
for the purpose of conducting the disciplinary proceeding only
for other consequential benefits, if any, would be admissible to
the petitioners depend upon the result of the disciplinary
proceeding.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.12.2023
Transmission Date NA
