S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) CHALLENGING order of dismissal dated 18.06.2011 and the appellate order dated 07.04.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to an advertisement dated 13.01.2004, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable. The petitioner appeared in the physical test conducted on 26.07.2004 and on being successful, he was appointed as constable on 15.05.2005. On 04.04.2012, a charge -memo was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that he gave wrong information of his being Home Guard in his application form and he had obtained identity -card through wrongful means. On 13.04.2011, the petitioner submitted his reply however, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. After the enquiry report was submitted. A second show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.04.2011, which was replied by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority passed order of dismissal from service on 18.06.2011 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed on 07.04.2013.
(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4, stating as under: - 7. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph -2, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner has already filed W.P. (S) No. 248/12 for same and similar relief and which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari and as such it is false to say that the petitioner has not filed earlier for same and similar relief. 8. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph -3 (i to ix), in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner has already challenged the order passed by the respondent No. 5 which was already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Court and the answering respondent has not violated any provision of law and passed the order in accordance with law, so question of any violation or writing any wrong does not arise at all. The alleged Departmental Proceeding has been properly initiated against the petitioner and after due enquiry and evidence the petitioner has been dismissed from the service. So the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from the Hon'ble court. 9. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph -4, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the same hence require no comment. 10. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph -5 to 9, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the said facts has already been decided in the earlier W.P. (S) No. 248/12 and all are based on record and therefore the petitioner has to give strict proof thereof. 11. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph -10 (i to iii), in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the same are matters of records hence the petitioner has to give strict proof thereof. 12. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph -11 and 12 in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the same are matter of record hence required no comment. 13. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph -13 (i to xiv), in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the Departmental Proceeding initiated against the petitioner and charge has been framed in accordance with law and there is no violation of any provision of law and the allegation against the petitioner found correct and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief by this Hon'ble Court as the earlier W.P. (S) No. 248/12 was already been disposed of by the Hon'ble Court on the similar ground and so far the question of documents the petitioner has to give strict proof thereof. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two fold contentions namely, (i) the charge against the petitioner was vague and therefore, the petitioner was denied an effective opportunity to meet the charges, and (ii) under the provisions of the Bihar Home Guards Act, 1947 and the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioner was a Home Guard and since it has been found by the departmental authorities that the identity -card produced by the petitioner was not obtained by wrongful means, the order of penalty removing the petitioner from service is based on 'no evidence' and therefore, liable to be quashed.;