NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.7.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as contained in An -nexure 6 to the writ petition, whereby punishment of discharge from his service has been awarded against the petitioner and also for quashing of the order dated 28.5.2003 of the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police. Palamau Range, Daltonganj as contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition by which the departmental appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of constable in 1979 and since then he served as such at several places of posting. In the year 1998 while he was posted in Palamau District he was served with a charge -sheet as contained in Annexure -3 to the writ petition. He was imputed with the charge of misconduct alleging that while he was posted as reserve guard in Patna Police station often -ly he used to take liquour and used to stay at inappropriate places in night. For that reason he was sent back to the Headquarter. These also he managed to avoid duties for five days on sick report and created commotion and disturbance in barrack in drunken condition want only abusing and calling bad names. On 4.11.1998 he entered into the room of Day Officer -Parameshwar Ram and scuffled with him causing bodily injury for which he had to take treatment in Daltonganj Police Hospital. The petitioner thereby misconduct and is unfit for further service in the police force. According to the petitioner, he was so shocked by such frivolous allegations. that he has lost balance of his mind and out of mental agonoy, 'He could not take part in the departmental enquiry. However, an enquiry was said to have been concluded by the Enquiry Officer in absentia. The Enquiry Officer then submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty. On the basis of that said report, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police. Palamau awarded punishment discharging the petitioner and holding that nothing beyond the subsistence allowance is payable to him for the period of his suspension. The petitioner then preferred a departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner upholding the order of the Disciplinary Authority as contained in Annexure -9 to the writ petition. The said two orders have been challenged in this writ petition.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the said two orders on the ground that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are against the law. provision of the Bihar Police Manual and the rules of the natural justice. According to him, even the purported enquiry report was not served on the petitioner and he did not get any opportunity to file and reply against the enquiry report. The learned counsel further submitted that the authorities have not discussed the evidences on the basis of which they have arrived al the said conclusion for removing the petitioner from his service. According to him. in the grab of discharge the petitioner has been illegally dismissed without following the procedure prescribed by law. The appellate authority has also not discharged his duty properly and coloroubly disposed of the appeal. Both the impugned order are cryptic and non -speaking and are violative of principle of natural justice. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charge against the petitioner is not so grave which attracts punishment of dismissal and the punishment is unconscionably, severe and disproportionate to the gravity of charge. No convincing reason has been assigned for passing such harsh punishment against the petitioner.;