Permod Kohli, J. - (1.) PETITIONER is serving as a Constable in the Police Department of the State. He was served with a Memo of charge vide Memo No. 2569 dated 04.12.2004, alleging, therein, that he remained absent from 19.10.2004 at 15:30 hours to 27 of October, 2004 i.e. eight days without taking permission. He was accused of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 (i) (ii) (iii) of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976. He replied to the chargesheet and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. One Shri Rajenra Sahu, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Report dated 28 of March, 2005 to the disciplinary authority i.e. the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police II. The Commandant has passed the impugned order dated 10 of May, 2005 imposing punishment of withholding of increments for six months. Petitioner has assailed the validity of the aforesaid order, inter alia, on the following grounds. (i) That Enquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner alongwith the impugned order of punishment and petitioner was not issued any show cause notice seeking his explanation in respect to the enquiry report. (ii) The impugned order suffers from non -application of mind. No reasons have been recorded in the impugned order and even the name of the Enquiry officer has been mentioned as Ram Vilas Das instead of Rajendra Sahu. (iii) That the disciplinary authority has failed to appreciate the evidence and other grounds urged.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 10 of May, 2005. In this order the name of Enquiry Officer is mentioned as Shri Ram Vilas Das, whereas, from the Enquiry Report it appears that the Enquiry was assigned to and conducted by one Shri Rajendra Sahu. From the impugned order it appears that the Disciplinary Authority has simply accepted the Report and passed the order of punishment. In the counter affidavit filed the allegation of the service of the copy of the Enquiry Report alongwith the impugned order has not been denied. The impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority suffers from non -application of mind. The disciplinary authority has demonstrated total lack of application of mind in as much as the name of the Enquiry Officer has not been correctly stated. It seems to be an order passed in a mechanical manner. This order is liable to be set aside on the grounds (i) that the Enquiry Report was not served upon the petitioner and/or his explanation sought and the petitioner has been deprived of his right of making effective representation in respect to the enquiry report. This itself is violation of the principles of natural justice. Otherwise also, the disciplinary authority has not considered the material on record or the validity of the reasoning of the Enquiry Officer. This order is liable to quashed only on these grounds. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the D.I.G., Jharkhand Armed Police and the Appeal has also been rejected vide order dated 28 of April, 2005.
(3.) IN view of the above circumstances, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order No. 237, dated 10 of May, 2005 passed by the disciplinary authority is hereby set aside and consequently that of the appellate authority dated 20 of December, 2002. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order after complying with the provisions of law as also the principles of natural justice in as much as petitioner shall be served with the Enquiry Report and he shall be asked to reply to the Enquiry Report and any fresh order be passed after seeking the reply of the petitioner to the Enquiry Report and in accordance with law.;