AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a police constable, was departmentally proceeded for the following charges: (1) He assaulted sepoy Kapildeo Mahto on 19/01/1991 (2) He abused the Company Commander. (3) He got himself admitted in Sadar hospital, Madhubani on 30/01/1991 without obtaining Command Certificate. (4) He instituted a criminal case against sepoy Kapildeo Mahto without obtaining permission of the Commandant, and (5) He did not report at Battalion Headquarters as per the Command Certificate issued on 09/02/1991 and remained absent till 16/10/1991.
(2.) THE Inquiry Officer after holding enquiry held the petitioner partially guilty for the charge No. 1, i.e. regarding assault on sepoy Kapildeo Mahto and with regard to the charges 2 to 5, the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner, guilty for the said charges. Pursuant to the finding of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order as contained in Annexure -3 holding the petitioner guilty for all the charges 1 to 5 and thereby considering the seriousness of the charges against the petitioner, who being a member of the police force was not expected to act and behave in such a manner as established against him in the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Commandant, Bihar -Military Police, BMP -3, Govindpur, Dhanbad, dismissed the petitioner from the service. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, i.e. the DIG vide his order as contained in Annexure -4 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by a reasoned order. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Director General of Police but the same was also rejected by a detail order as contained in Annexure -5.
(3.) MR . Prabhash Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner partially guilty for the charge No. 1, i.e. with regard to assault made by him to sepoy Kapildeo Mahto but the Disciplionary Authority held him fully guilty for the said charge after disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, which according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner was not legal and valid in view of the decision in the case of "Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra Reported in ".;