M.C. Verma, Member (J)

1. Being aggrieved by issuance of Charge Memorandum (Annexure A/1), dated 10.12.2020, for initiation of major disciplinary proceeding under Rule-8 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules-1969 and also for non granting of promotion because of reason of Departmental proceeding, to the post of I.G. at the time when his junior were granted promotion instant OA has been preferred by the applicant, namely Rajesh Kumar, an IPS officer of 2003 batch. The prayer of the applicant, as has been made in the OA is as under:-

"A. Memorandum dated 10.12.2020, issued upon the order of Hon'ble Governor, Bihar and under the signature of Additional Secretary to Government of Bihar Department of Home (Home Police), as contained in Annexure-A/1, may be quashed and set aside whereby the applicant has been implicated in a wholly irregular Major Disciplinary Proceeding under Rule-8 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules-1969.

B. Sankalp dated 17 June 2021, issued upon the orders of Hon'ble Governor, Bihar and under the signature of Secretary to Government of Bihar, Department of Home (Home Police), as contained in Annexure-A/3, may be quashed and set aside whereby the Written Statement of Defence submitted by applicant dated 11.01.2021, challenging absolutely erroneous Disciplinary Proceeding, has been rejected after more than 5 months but being uncomfortable, by a non speaking order.

C. The respondents forthwith may be directed to order the promotion of applicant to I.G. Police w.e.f. his batch-mate Sri Vikash Vaibhav, IPS and his juniors Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, IPS and Sri Suresh Prasad Choudhary IPS, Ordered vide Notification dated 29 December 2020 as contained in Annexure-A/4 with all consequential benefits.

D. Any other Relief/Reliefs, the applicant is entitled and Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice."

2. Case of the applicant, as has been set out in the pleading of the OA, precisely is:-

(i) That applicant is a direct recruited IPS officer of 2003 batch presently posted as D.I.G. Police Begusarai Range, Bihar and the Charge Memorandum has been issued to him at the time when promotion of him to the post of I.G. was due. That the allegations leveled in the Charge Memorandum are that he has acted with mala fide intent or in mala fide manner while performing his quasi judicial function as Disciplinary/Appellate/Revisionary Authority. That he, on 11/01/2021, gave reply of the charge memorandum explaining his position.

(ii) In pleading applicant elaborately has mentioned details of his reply and pleaded further that his reply has been rejected by a non speaking order (Annexure-A/3), Sankalp dated 17th June 2021 issued under the signature of Secretary to Government of Bihar, Department of Home (Home Police), upon the orders of Hon'ble Governor, Bihar.

(iii) That he, as DIG Central range Patna, have passed approximately 160 quasi-judicial orders as Appellate or as Disciplinary authority. That in his capacity as appellate or as disciplinary authority he followed complete uniformity & transparency and did not violate principle of natural justice or of law.

(iv) That he has brilliant record and because of this erroneous charge memorandum he was not given promotion to the post of Inspector General of police and his three batch mate, including two juniors, namely Vijay kumar Verma & Sri Suresh Chaudhry have been promoted to the post of Inspector General of police vide notification dated 29/12/2020.

(v) It has been contended in pleading that no allegations of corruption, corrupt motive, favoritism or lack of integrity is illustrated by the charge memorandum nor the allegations leveled in the Charge Memorandum can be treated as misconduct warranting initiation of Disciplinary proceedings because the same relates to his discretion as quasi judicial function exercised by him while he has acted as Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority in Departmental Proceeding. That revisionary authority of him while reviewing the order passed by him as an appellate authority has also not observed any misconduct. That there can be difference of opinion between disciplinary/appellate/revisionary authority according to their analysis of various factors that did appear before them but the same alone cannot be ground for departmental action when the element of guilty mind is not there.

3. After issuance of notice WS has been filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 6. No WS has been filed by respondent-1. Disputing the relief claimed in the OA and stating about the duties of Deputy Inspector General under Rule 9(b) of Bihar Police Manual, 1978 and referring Rule 826 of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978, contesting respondent have pleaded that some cases were decided by the applicant as Disciplinary Authority and some others as Appellate Authority. That as Disciplinary Authority or being Appellate Authority his act was against the established principles of law and Rules made in Bihar Police Manual, 1978 and he without any legal basis modified the punishment awarded to some officers found guilty in disciplinary proceedings by the Conducting Officers. That the Police Headquarters, under Rule 853A of Bihar Police Manual, 1978, reviewed the cases which were modified by the applicant and recommended initiation of departmental proceeding against him. That the Inspector General of Police (Hqr.) Bihar Patna, vide letter dated 30.09.2020, requested Home Department (Police Branch) Bihar, Patna to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the applicant for his administrative incompetency, negligence towards duty and providing shelter to the officers who were incompetent in crime control.

3.1. Further pleadings of respondents is that the matter of the applicant was examined at the Government level and it was decided to issue memorandum for initiation of departmental proceeding against the applicant, under Rule 8 of the All India Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules 1969, and accordingly vide memo dated 10.12.2020 applicant was directed to submit a reply in terms of the provision contained in Rule 8(5) of the All India Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules 1969. That the reply, submitted by applicant vide letter dated 11.02.2021 & 25.01.2021, was not found satisfactory and hence Government issued Resolution No. 3866 dated 17.06.2021 for conducting departmental proceeding under Rule 8 of 1969 Rules against the applicant. That the Home Department (Police Branch), vide Resolution No. 4587 dated 09.07.2021, has appointed Smt. Beena Kumari (IPS), S.P. (Weaker Section), C.I.D., Bihar, Patna as Presenting Officer in the departmental proceeding. It has also been pleaded that Chief Enquiry Commissioner, Bihar vide letter dated 01.07.2021 asked the Home Department to send its opinion on the explanation submitted by the applicant and Home Department found not satisfactory the written reply sent by applicant and sent its opinion to Chief Enquiry Commissioner, Bihar Patna vide letter dated 30.07.2021.

3.2. With respect to the claim of the applicant for granting promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police is concerned, it is pleaded by respondents that a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion on the post of Inspector General of Police for the year 2021 was held on 16.12.2020 for the 2003 batch of I.P.S. Officers. The recommendation regarding the promotion of the applicant, vide Momo dated 10.12.2020 has been kept in sealed envelope due to the departmental proceeding initiated.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Jayant Kr. Karn Advocate, appearing for the applicant urged that applicant is an IPS officer and he as DIG Central range Patna have passed approximately 160 quasi-judicial orders as appellate or as disciplinary authority and that Respondent Department being displeased now has issued Charge Memorandum to the applicant alleging that he acting as Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority did not act as per norms and that orders passed by him have been reversed by the Higher Authority. That applicant gave reply of the charge memorandum explaining his position that he sincerely dealt with the Departmental Proceeding and that if some of his orders have not found favor of the Higher Authority that alone cannot be a ground for issuance of charge memorandum until unless there are allegation of dishonesty or undue favor and that in charge memorandum there is no such allegations of dishonesty or undue favor etc. He also argued that applicant is at the verge of promotion and deliberately, with ulterior motive time has been chosen to deprive the applicant of his due promotion of I.G.

5. Learned Counsel Shri Harash Singh Advocate appearing for respondent's No. 2 to 6 disputed the maintainability of the O.A. submitting that the O.A. is premature, departmental enquiry has been set up and without conclusion of departmental proceeding it would not be justified to entertain the O.A. He requests to dismiss the OA. However, he also requested for two weeks time to enable the respondents to reconsider, stating that he has been given impression that State Authority wants to reconsider about this charge memorandum.

6. Recording said request of Mr. Harash Singh in proceeding order (dated 04/4/2022) four weeks time was given. Thereafter, on 27/5/2022, Mr. Harash Singh placed on record a letter of Bihar Government Department of Home (Aarakshi Sakha), No. 3948 and dated 19/4/22 addressed to him. The letter is in Hindi and its text, in vernacular is as under:-

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

7. In said backdrop matter was reheard in detail, for final disposal. Learned counsel for applicant while pressing the OA reiterated his submissions quoted above, in paragraph 4, and argued further that imputations are vague, no financial angle involved and even if some irregularities or mistakes are there in order passed by the applicant as Disciplinary or as Appellate Authority the same cannot be said to fall in the ambit of misconduct and stating that respondent authority has set up departmental enquiry and has appointed the Inquiry Officer, vide order dated 16.06.2021, he urged that if this practice of issuing charge memorandum, without cogent reason relating to order passed by a person in capacity of quasi-judicial authority & setting set up of departmental enquiry is encouraged that would defeat the very basic feature of our Constitution. He emphasized that the Charge Memorandum & Article of Charges are vague and the imputations are not specific. He referred the Charge Memorandum & Article of Charges and placed reliance on decisions titled: (i) Abhay Jain vs. The High of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 Live Law [SC] 284; (ii) Secretary, M/o. Defence & Ors. Vs. Parbhash Chandra Mirdha : (2012) 11 SCC 565 [LQ/SC/2012/514] ; and (iii) G. Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala 2021 (4) KLT 541.

8. Learned Counsel Mr. Radhika Raman, appearing for respondent No. 1 urged that respondent No. 1 is a formal party and he would adopt the submissions to be advanced by Mr. Harash Singh Advocate who is appearing for respondent's No. 2 to 6. Mr. Harash Singh arguing that judgment relied upon by the applicant is not applicable in this case, has urged that without conclusion of departmental proceeding it would not be justified to entertain this OA and made request to dismiss the OA. During argument attention of Mr. Harash was invited to Memorandum of charges and he was requested to see whether specific imputation with details of that case in which undue favor has been alleged to be done by the applicant is there in this memorandum and he submits that he is unable to specify the details of cases in which favor was done by the applicant nor it is disclosed by the Charge memorandum but the details of those cases is deducible from list of documents & witnesses attached with charge memorandum and it cannot be said that applicant was not aware, he has in his reply has answered about those cases. He concluded his submission stating that serious allegations against the applicant are there, like putting halt/suppress certain act of offences, failure in crime control and exonerating the delinquent official, acting as Disciplinary Authority or as Appellate Authority, on external or improbable ground.

9. Considered the submissions advanced and perused the record. The issue that has erupted is if the charge memorandum does not have specific imputation and details, whether departmental proceeding can proceed based upon such memorandum of charge alleging incompetency, negligence towards duty and providing shelter to the officers who were incompetent in crime control

10. It is settled legal proposition that the only thing in a decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and to isolate from it the ratio decidendi. As far Parbhash Chandra Mirdha's case [cited supra], relied upon by applicant, relates, obviously issue evolved in this case was different. In this case the issue erupted was of competency of the Authority issuing charge sheet and hence is clearly distinguishable.

11. In G. Santosh Kumar's case [cited supra] and relied upon by applicant the issue before Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, in petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., was whether refund of excess tax amount to company by Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) amount to criminal misconduct and Hon'ble High Court holding that Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) while passing the assessment order under Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003 had discharged function as a "Judge" and is entitled to protection under Section 3(1) of the Judges Protection Act, 1985; and observing so Hon'ble High Court held that the prosecution (Criminal) against the petitioner, which is based on Assessment Orders passed by him, is not maintainable.

12. In Abhay Jain case [cited supra] and relied upon by applicant, an direct recruits ADJ of July 2013, was discharged from service in year 2016. He while was posted as Sessions Judge Anti-Corruption did grant a bail and the genesis of the action of discharge of him from service was grant of this Bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court intervened observing that the charges are vague and that every judicial officers is likely to commit mistake of some kind or other in passing orders in the initial stage of his service, however, if the order are passed without their being any corrupt motive, the same should be overlooked by the High Court. That negligence alone cannot be treated as misconduct. Recently Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in its decision dated 05/07/22, delivered in case titled Satyender Kumar Singh vs. UOI & Ors., passed in CWJC No. 11622 of 2014 has referred said case of Abhay Jain and noted down that "Apex Court interfered in departmental inquiry proceedings if the charges are vague in the case of Abhay Jain vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan and Anr. Reported in

13. Regarding vagueness of Charge Memo, Hon'ble High Court also has referred paragraph 16 of case reported in : (2013) 6 SCC 515, [LQ/SC/2013/484] which verbatim is as under:--

"Further, in respect of vagueness of the charge Hon'ble Apex Court has considered in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society & Ors. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515 [LQ/SC/2013/484] . The relevant paragraph 16 reads as under:-

"16. Where the charge-sheet is accompanied by the statement of facts and the allegations are not specific in the charge-sheet, but are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a situation, as both constitute the same document, it cannot be held that as the charges were not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. Thus, nowhere should a delinquent be served a charge-sheet, without providing to him, a clear, specific and definite description of the charge against him. When statement of allegations are not served with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The evidence adduced should not be perfunctory; even if the delinquent does not take the defence of, or make a protest that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated, for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. What is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. (Vide State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, U.P. SRTC v. Ram Chandra Yadav, Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar and Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshertriya Gramin Bank.)"

14. While setting aside Order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner before it, in Satyender Kumar Singh's case, Hon'ble High Court did find & laid down as herein below:-

"Statement of imputation of misconduct in support of Article of Charge vide Annexure 2 to the Charge Memo does not reveal the title departmental rules and procedures and which rule and which procedure, which have not been taken note of by the petitioner while processing the bills in Gardanibagh Post office Building and Sub Postmaster Quarter No. 5, Road No. 8, Gardanibagh. In other words, Article of charge is not supported by statement of imputation also. In fact, the petitioner had demanded five documents and he has been provided few documents except which are the departmental rules and procedures which is the foundation for framing Article of charge against the petitioner. The aforesaid issue has not been apprised by the inquiring authority, Disciplinary authority, Appellate authority and Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case that the Charge Memo itself is very vague to the extent that petitioner did not follow the laid down departmental rules and procedures and process the bill as stated in the Article of charge. In other words, very vague charges have been framed without stating which of the rule of the Title of the departmental rules and procedures have been violated. In fact, no departmental rules and procedures have been stated in the Article of charge and so also in the statement of imputation. Therefore, findings of the inquiring officer and its confirmation by the disciplinary and appellate authority and Tribunal are not in consonance with the principle of natural justice."

15. It deems fit & proper at this stage, in unique facts and circumstances of the case in hand, to reproduce the charge memorandum and reply of charge memorandum by the applicant. The Charge Memorandum is in abstruse Hindi, its transcript version in English has been supplied by counsel of applicant and counsel for both set of respondents, upon enquiry have stated at Bar that they are having no complaint about correctness of translation. Translated transcription of Memorandum of Charges in English, as has been supplied by learned counsel for applicant, verbatim, is as under:-

"Government of Bihar

Home Department

(Police Branch)

Memorandum

Patna, Dated December, 2020

Memorandum No. 1/M02-60-18/2020 Home. Police......./Shri Rajesh Kumar, I.P.S. (2003). The then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna Presently Deputy Inspector General of Police, Begusarai Range, Begusarai during his posting period from 01.05.2017 to 14.08.2019 in certain Departmental Proceedings after being found Charges proved by the Conducting Officers and appropriate punishments awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, Mr. Kumar in his capacity of Appellate Authority, without considering the facts and evidences, acquitted the delinquents on external grounds like "probable promotion in future", as a result of which the disqualified officer was also promoted. Similarly, in the departmental proceedings conducted against the inspectors, despite being found guilty by the conducting officer, Mr. Kumar acquitted them in capacity of Disciplinary Authority. Besides, in some of the Departmental Proceedings where there were procedural error in conduction of Disciplinary Inquiry, instead of taking remedial action the same were closed in the same form. Serious allegations were there against the delinquent officials like putting halt/suppress certain act of offences, reducing the seriousness of offence, failure in crime control and allowing benefits of Section-167(2) to the accused by delinquent officials. The disregard for the duties against the delinquents were not considered as bad by Mr. Kumar. The duties of Deputy Inspector General of Police as prescribed for Shri Kumar in Bihar Police Handbook, especially crime control led failure to maintain discipline and efficiency among subordinate Police force. Thus, the work done by Mr. Kumar as disciplinary authority and supervisory officer has been doubtful. Shri Kumar has been instrumental in providing shelter to incompetent officials in crime control and allowing promotion of unskilled officers in their duties. The above act of Mr. Kumar is indicative of his arbitrariness, indiscipline, administrative incompetence, apathy towards duty and lack of truthfulness and is against the dignity of the Senior Police Officer, which is against All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968 Rule-3(1), 3(1A)(i), 3(1A)(iii), 3(1A)(iv), 3(2), 3(2B)(viii), 3(2B)(x) and 3(3)(i).

2. Sri Rajesh Kumar, I.P.S. (2003), Deputy Inspector General of Police, Begusarai Range, Begusarai, has been decided to departmentally proceeded with for his said serious allegations under All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969 by the Disciplinary Authority. The "Articles of Charge" and "Statement of Imputations of Misbehavior and Misconduct" prepared for conducting departmental proceedings against Mr. Kumar are enclosed with evidence/witness table.

3. Shri Rajesh Kumar, IPS (2003), Deputy Inspector General of Police, Begusarai Range, Begusarai is hereby given an opportunity under Rule 8(5) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 to defend himself. If he wish to make his written representation, submit it to this Department within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this Memorandum. Along with this, also inform the department whether he want to present his defense in this proceedings or not. The decision of Enquiry would be taken only to those allegations which will not be accepted in the defense representation.

4. If Mr. Rajesh Kumar, IPS (2003), Deputy Inspector General of Police, Begusarai Range, Begusarai, does not submit his written defense statement/representation within the stipulated period mentioned in paragraph-3 above, then further action will be taken against him as per rules.

5. Shri Rajesh Kumar, IPS (2003) will accept this Memorandum and a copy of the "Articles of Charge" and "Statement of Imputations of Misbehavior and Misconduct" attached herewith and all evidence/witness table.

By order of the Governor of Bihar

Sd/- 10.12.2020

(Girish Mohan Thakur)

Under Secretary to Government"

16. The Text of Articles of Charges, annexed with Charge Memorandum is as follows:-

"Government of Bihar

Home Department

(Police Branch)

The Articles of Charges

1. Name, designation and

category of the officer:-Shri Rajesh Kumar, IPS (2003). The then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Patna Presently Deputy Inspector General of Police. Begusarai Range, Begusarai.

2. Details of Charges:-Against Shri Rajesh Kumar, IPS (2003),

while employed as Deputy Inspector General, Central Range, Patna during his posting period from 01.05.2017 to 14.08.2019 committed irregularities in certain departmental proceedings against the original orders of Departmental Proceedings in the capacity of Appellate Authority and Inquiry report of the then Inspector General of Police was received vide Memo 521 dated 09.02.2019. Through the said report, the orders passed by Mr. Kumar as appellate authority against the orders issued in certain departmental proceedings are not proportionate to the charge leveled against the delinquents, in the Inspector General of Police, Patna Zone, Patna, Under Police Manual Rule 853(A) A request was made to the Bihar Police Headquarters for review under (a)(K). Similarly, in the departmental proceedings conducted against the police inspectors, despite being found guilty by the Conducting officer, the order passed by Mr. Kumar as the original disciplinary authority was not proportionate to the charge leveled against the delinquents and as such by the Inspector General of Police, Patna Range, Patna a request was made to Police Headquarter. Under Bihar Police Manual Rule 853(a)(k), request was made to the Police Headquarters for review through letter No. 1310/S.A. dated 25.04.2019.

1. Bihar Police Headquarter, after review found that in certain departmental proceedings, after being found charges proved by the Conducting officers, despite being given appropriate punishment by the original disciplinary authority, without reviewing the facts and evidence by Mr. Kumar himself as the appellate authority, Orders of exoneration were passed on external grounds like "probable promotion in future". The result of which was that these serious lapses of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who played an active role in including the ineligible officers, who were also promoted, in the category of qualified officers for promotion, cannot be ignored, because of the fault in the appeal by him. Being freed was the only reason, due to which the names of such office bearers could be included in the promotion board. The said act of Mr. Kumar is indicative of his arbitrariness, indiscipline, administrative incompetence, indifference to duty and lack of truthfulness and is against the dignity of the senior police officer, which is against Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, 3(1A)(i), 3(1A)(iii), 3(1A)(iv), 3(2), 3(2B)(viii), of 3(2B)(x) and 3(3)(i).

2. In the departmental proceedings conducted against the police inspectors, despite being found guilty by the conducting officer, Mr. Kumar acquitted him as a disciplinary authority. Apart from this, even though there were procedural defects in the conduct of some departmental proceedings, they were filed in the same format without taking corrective action on them.

In a review done at the Bihar Police Headquarters level of the original the police inspectors, it was found that in the departmental proceedings, the Conducting officer intended to be found guilty for the charges framed against the delinquents, but as disciplinary authority by Mr. Kumar. A mere "Warning for Future" order was passed and no reasonable reason was given to disagree with the views of the Conducting Officers. There were procedural lapses in some of the proceedings, which were ignored by Mr. Kumar, instead of corrective steps. The above act of Mr. Kumar shows his arbitrariness, indiscipline, administrative incompetence, indifference to duty and lack of truthfulness and is against the dignity of the senior police officer, which is infringement of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, 3(1), 3(1A)(i), 3(1A)(iii), 3(1A)(iv), 3(2), 3(2B)(viii), 3(2B)(x) and 3(3)(i).

3. In the departmental proceedings conducted against the police inspectors, by the conducting officer the charges were found substantiated and in the case of police sub-inspectors and others, the disciplinary authority, agreeing with the opinion of the conducting officer, passed appropriate punishment, but all the serious allegations against delinquents were considered by Mr. Kumar as minor mistake and exonerated with "Warning for Future". The allegations made in the departmental proceedings conducted against the delinquents were serious in nature but the inability to differentiate between serious charges and minor errors was displayed by Mr. Kumar. The charges constituted against the delinquents like suppression, mitigation, failure to control the crime and giving the benefit of section 167(2) of CrPC to the accused were not considered as negligence by Mr. Kumar. The duties of Deputy Inspector General of Police by Shri Kumar as prescribed in Bihar Police Handbook, especially crime control and the subordinate force have failed to maintain discipline and efficiency. Thus the work done by Mr. Kumar as a Disciplinary Authority and Supervisory Officer is doubtful. Shri Kumar has been instrumental in providing shelter to incompetent officials in crime control and promotion of unskilled officers in their duties. The said act of Mr. Kumar is indicative of his arbitrariness, indiscipline, administrative incompetence, indifference to duty and lack of truthfulness, which is in violation with Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, 3(1A)(i), 3(1A)(3), 3(1A)(iv), 3(2), 3(2B)(viii), 3(2B)(x) and 3(3)(i).

Sd/- 10.12.2020

(Girish Mohan Thakur)

Under Secretary to Government

Home Department (Police Branch)"

17. Reply of Charge Memorandum by applicant, verbatim is under:-

"Office of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Begusarai Range, Begusarai.

From:

Rajesh Kumar, IPS.

DIG, Begusarai Range.

Begusarai.

To,

Shri Girish Mohan Thakur,

The Under Secretary to the Government,

Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

Ref.: Your Memo No. 1/M2-60-18/2020 Home Police 8450 dated 10.12.2020.

Subject: Submission of written statement.

Sir,

The above memo was handed over to me by a special messenger on 14.12.20. I am submitting a written statement within the required time limit with regards to the aforesaid memo. 8450 dated 10.12.2020 Under Rule-8(5) of All India Services (discipline and appeal) Rules 1969 informing contemplation of enquiry and granting me opportunity to file written statement within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid letter.

During my tenure as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna period being 01.05.2017 to 14.08.2019 I have passed many quasi-judicial orders as appellate and disciplinary authority out of which orders passed in 4 appeals and 7 proceedings have been questioned.

In response to the aforesaid memo the undersigned submits as under:

1. The orders passed by me were reviewed by the Revisional Authority as per prescribed norms and necessary orders have been passed by the Revisional Authority which was found to be appropriate in his consideration.

2. In discharge of my official duties as quasi-judicial Authority, I followed complete uniformity and transparency and passed necessary quasi-judicial orders without committing error of law or Rules of Natural Justice. Discretion in imposition of punishment in capacity of disciplinary or Appellate Authority depends on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent held, previous penalty, willful disobedience etc. While deciding the appeal these factors were taken into consideration.

3. In the Judicial and Quasi-judicial matters there can be difference of opinions between disciplinary/appellate/revisional authorities and they may pass orders according to their analysis of various facts and factors that appeared before them. This cannot be made grounds for action against a quasi-judicial authority as has been stated by the Police Headquarters memo 55/350203/L1 dated 25.01.2018 in which it has been clearly said appellate authority can review/increase/exonerate the punishment.

4. In these proceedings the element of guilty mind and intention of the delinquent employee was found missing and prima facie the evidence in support of proved and partly proved charges were not held to be based on sound evidence capable of proving the charges objectively and beyond reasonable doubt following the principle of natural justice.

5. In all the aforesaid appeals and proceeding of delinquents there was no allegation of corruption, favoritism or lack of integrity in the complaint/charges and neither any corrupt motive had been attributed to the delinquent officers in the proceedings.

6. The revisional authority having regard to quasi-judicial authority has not commented anything against the disciplinary authority or appellate authority with regards to orders passed by me while reviewing the orders under Rule-853(a) of the Bihar Police Manual.

7. In capacity of Appellate Authority out of many appeals, the order passed in the following 4 appeals have been questioned in above aforesaid memo. The details of the matters and the factors have been given below:

(i) Departmental Proceeding No. 61/2017 of S.I., Vinod Kumar-

a) The said delinquent employee was subjected to disciplinary proceeding vide charge memo dated 11.02.2017 mainly on the charges of his inability in curbing the offence of vehicle thefts under Rupaspur Police Station. The ASP, Phulwari was made the Enquiry Officer of the matter. The delinquent employee filed his explanation on 17.05.2017 before the Enquiry Officer on 17.05.2017 denying the charges of being insensitive and unprofessional. In his reply he has further stated that no explanation was sought and straight way the disciplinary proceeding was initiated, several new residential colonies and apartments have come up within the area of Rupaspur P.S. where no arrangement for parking the vehicles have been made and the vehicles are parked unattended on road side outside the house/apartments. He submitted the details of prompt action taken in cases of vehicle theft and prompt action taken in other cases resulting into recovery of stolen goods and arrest of accused persons and requested to accept his explanation. Admittedly the charged employee did not cross examine the witnesses and the Enquiry Officer however found the charges of not curbing the incident of vehicle theft to be true and submitted his report on 01.08.2017. The City S.P. West Patna cum Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of two black marks, the effect of the same was withholding of increment for one year with cumulative effect vide order under Memo No. 2408 dated 23.08.2017.

b) Against the order of punishment, the delinquent employee filed his appeal for my consideration in capacity of Appellate Authority giving details of cases successfully handled by him and the efforts made by him for maintaining law and order within his local jurisdiction. He further gave references of cases wherein stolen goods were recovered and about rewards given to him by Sr. Officials. Giving the details of the circumstances and achievement he had in his service tenure, he had made the prayer to accept the appeal and to set aside the disproportionate punishment order passed by Disciplinary Authority keeping into account his due promotion.

c) The undersigned having considered the gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duty assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that he held and the reward given to him by the Sr. Police Officers and recovery of articles made in several cases of theft modified the order of punishment to the punishment of "warning" vide order dated 06.07.2018.

d) The order passed by the undersigned was however reviewed under Police Manual Rule 853(a) and the Revisional Authority vide his order under Memo No. 77 dated 04.03.2020 set aside the order passed by me and upheld the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.

(ii) Departmental Proceeding No. 19/2016 of S.I. Rajesh Kumar

a) This delinquent employee was charged for not submitting special report and details of pending cases of Rupaspur P.S. of the year 2014 and 2015 and for being negligent and disobedient he was charged on 18.01.2016 and the S.D.P.O., Law and Order was appointed as enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of charges and submitted his report dated 30.10.2017 and based on findings of Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of withholding of one annual increment which is equivalent to two black marks.

b) The said delinquent employee filed his appeal on 06.07.2018 against the order of punishment stating inter-alia that he had submitted the charge report of the said case mentioning the charge sheet number and date on which it was submitted. The notice said to have been given on 24 occasions was denied, however one notice was admittedly received by him and as such he stated to have not got the opportunity to defend himself and the order of punishment was passed unilaterally on incorrect facts.

c) Having considered the entire records including charge memo, enquiry report, order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appeal of the delinquent employee the order of punishment in my considered opinion was not found to be sustainable and accordingly after due consideration the punishment withholding of increment was reduced to "warning" by order dated 10.07.2018. The order thus passed by me was a well-considered order.

d) The order passed by the undersigned was reviewed at the level of Director General of Police Under Rule-853(a) of Bihar Police Manual and it was set aside and the order of the Disciplinary Authority was upheld vide order dated 17.02.2020. The order passed by Director General of Police was subsequently duplicated by Inspector General of Police, Patna Range in his order dated 05.03.2020 without commenting anything adverse against order passed by me.

(iii) Departmental Proceeding No. 63/2017 of S.I., Akhilesh Kumar

a) A charge sheet dated 02.03.2017 was issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna disclosing the charge of not lodging any F.I.R. or entering the case in Case Diary of a truck which met with an accident with a standing tree on 30.10.2016, which was reported by the Choukidar and subsequent necessary action in the matter. The City S.P. (West), Patna recommended for action and in the light of recommendation the direction of initiation of departmental proceeding was issued by the Senior S.P. Patna on 02.03.2017 and Deputy S.P., Secretariat, security was appointed as conducting officer.

b) The said delinquent employee filed his explanation on 15.06.2018 stating inter-alia that he had made entry in case diary on 30.10.2016 itself and made all endeavors to find out the owner of the vehicle. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 15.06.2018 holding charges to be partly proved.

c) The disciplinary authority (S.S.P., Patna) however differing with the finding of enquiry officer awarded punishment of withholding of one increment equivalent to two black marks and it was further ordered that nothing except subsistence allowance shall be paid to the delinquent employee vide order dated 17.07.2018.

d) Against the order of punishment an appeal was preferred before the undersigned and upon consideration of entire record including the explanation and the report of the Enquiry Officer whereby the charges were partly proved, the order of punishment was reduced to warning by my appellate order dated 18.07.2018.

e) The matter was again examined by the Director General of Police under Rule-353(a) of the Bihar Police Manual and upon consideration the appellate order passed by me was set aside and the order of disciplinary authority was upheld vide order dated 05.02.2020 and the similar order has been passed by the Inspector General of Police, Patna range on 05.03.2020 without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.

(iv) Departmental Proceeding No. 246/2018 of S.I., Brajbhushan Mishra

a) This delinquent employee was saddled with a charge dated 19.05.2018 of not submitting charge sheet in time in Maner P.S. Case No.-196/2013 and its benefit was taken by the accused under Section-167(2) of the Cr.P.C. by getting bail from the Court of Law.

b) The charges levelled against the delinquent employee was proved by the conducting officer upon which the order of punishment of withholding of one annual increment was issued by the disciplinary authority on 28.07.2018.

c) Against the order of punishment an appeal was preferred before the undersigned stating inter-alia that all the accused persons surrendered in the court due to prompt action taken by him. The charge sheet was prepared in time but due to his other engagement he assigned the duty of submission of charge sheet to his subordinate employee who could not submit the same due to ignorance. Explaining the reasons, he prayed for setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority so that he is not deprived of his due promotion.

d) Having considered the entire records including charge memo, report of enquiry officer, order of punishment and the averments made in appeal the punishment of "warning" was considered to be appropriate and accordingly the punishment was reduced to "warning".

e) My order was again reviewed on 05.02.2020 at the level of Director General of Police under Rule-853(a) of the Bihar Police Manual and upon consideration the original order of disciplinary authority was upheld and Zonal I.G., Patna passed the consequential order dated 06.03.2020 in consonance with the order passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.

8. In capacity of Disciplinary Authority out of many proceedings, orders passed in the following 7 proceedings have been questioned in above aforesaid memo. The details of the matters and the factors have been given below:

(i) Nalanda District Departmental Proceeding No. 18/2016 of Inspector Rajesh Ranjan

The delinquent Police Sub-Inspector Rajesh Ranjan who at the relevant time was posted as Station House Officer, Laheri Police Station was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding and a charge memo dated 12.02.2016 was served upon him for instituting a case of snatching of a bag under Section 379 of the IPC instead of 392 in an incident reported by a retired army personnel who was returning from the bank after withdrawing a sum of 50000/- from the bank which he had kept in the said bag. He was charged of not applying appropriate section for offence.

The Enquiry Officer enquired into the matter and submitted his report on 10.05.2018 holding that he should have applied 392 IPC but a weaker section of 379 IPC was applied and hence he was found to be guilty of the charges.

The delinquent employee filed his representation on 11.05.2018 stating inter alia that the case in which he was charged of applying 379 of the IPC was in fact found to be true by the supervising Authority under the same Section 379 and he had performed good services resulting into arrest of a veteran criminal Vishal Yadav of Katihar for which he was also awarded. In his service tenure he was given several letter of appreciation and thus prayer was made from exoneration from charges.

Having considered the entire record including the enquiry report and the defense taken by the delinquent employee the punishment of warning was awarded to the said delinquent employee.

(ii) Patna District Departmental Proceeding No. 152/2013 of Inspector Mritunjay Prasad Singh

The aforesaid delinquent employee who at the relevant time was Station House Officer, Sultanganj was charged of not keeping the station diary up to date. On 27.06.2013 the inspection of the Police Station was conducted and it was found that the entry in the diary was not made after 24.06.2013 and he was found missing and his mobile was switched off. For these charges of negligence and in discipline the charge memo dated 02.05.2013 was issued against the delinquent employee.

The said delinquent employee submitted his explanation before the Enquiry Officer on 19.08.2014 stating inter alia that he was on night duty on the said date i.e. 27.06.2013 and further stated that the person who use to maintain station diary was on leave and another ASI namely Madan Mohan Jha was assigned the duty of entry of station diary. There was no other deficiency found in the inspection.

The Enquiry Officer however found the charges of not maintaining station diary and keeping the mobile phone switched off to be true.

The matter came for my consideration and having regard to the circumstances and after perusal of the charge sheet, the exhibits, the witnesses and the enquiry report and the explanation given by the delinquent employee and the various cases successfully handled by the delinquent employee the order of warning was found to be appropriate in given situation and accordingly the delinquent employee was warned.

The revisional authority however reviewed the matter and agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer awarded the punishment of withholding of increment for six months which is equivalent to the punishment of one black mark and without commenting anything on my order modified the order passed by me vide his order dated 13.07.2020.

(iii) Patna District Departmental Proceeding No. 123/2016 of Inspector Ekram Khan

The aforesaid delinquent employee, who at the relevant time was posted as Station House Officer, Phulwarisharif was subjected to Disciplinary Proceeding on the charge of not registering a case against Md. Shaifullah in time. this led to filing of a complaint case and a criminal Writ No. 260/2016 wherein Hon'ble High Court directed Sr. S.P. to file his show cause. Had it been lodged in time it would not have given rise to this situation and for thus for charges of delayed lodging of FIR the proceeding was initiated and City S.P. (West) was appointed as Conducting Officer.

The delinquent employee filed his reply on 29.01.2017 stating inter alia that the Complaint case said to have been filed was not brought to his notice by the concerned persons namely Jawahar Mishra and Jainandan Sharma. In the past there had been no allegation against him of not registering the FIR in time. During his posting at Phulwarisharif there was serious law and order problem which always kept him engaged however he worked to the best of his satisfaction. However, the enquiry report was submitted on 15.05.2017 holding the charges against the delinquent employee to be true. Despite the fact that the action against the erring and guilty officials namely Jawahar Mishra and Jainandan Sharma had already been taken.

This matter came for my consideration and in capacity of disciplinary authority I examined the entire record such as charge memo, exhibits, statement of witnesses, the remarks of Enquiry Officer and also the explanation given by the delinquent employee and having considered the removal of the guilty constable Jawahar Mishra and Jainendra Sharma and initiation of enquiry against them for not presenting the case for its institution, the case of delinquent employee was considered in its totality and the punishment awarding "warning" was issued against the said delinquent employee on 31.07.2018.

This matter was reviewed at the level of Director General of Police under Rule 853(A) of the Bihar Police Manual and the order passed by me was set aside and the proceeding under CCA Rules, 2005 was directed to be initiated against the delinquent employee afresh vide dated 05.03.2020.

The Inspector General of Police, Patna range passed the consequential order on 21.09.2020 awarding the punishment of withholding of increment of six months which is equivalent to punishment of one black mark without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.

(iv) Patna District Departmental Proceeding No. 389/2018 of Inspector Rakesh Kumar Bhaskar

The aforesaid delinquent employee who at the relevant time was posted as Station House Officer, Secretariat Police Station was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding and a charge dated 01.09.2018 was instituted against him for being in discipline and negligent. In the midnight of 14.08.2018, One Sri Rajiv Kumar was murdered by unknown person during course of robbery when the place of occurrence is at close distance from the Police Station.

An explanation by the delinquent employee was given on 29.09.2018 stating inter alia that acting promptly search was conducted and on the basis of his information the accused persons namely Sunny Kumar and Shrawan Kumar were arrested with the looted jewelry. The said case was fully solved in no time and thus he prayed for exoneration from charges.

The enquiry officer submitted his report recording the findings of prompt action taken by the delinquent employee however for not discharging expected duties the delinquent employee was found guilty.

Taking into account the totality of the circumstances and also observation of enquiry officer, the charged memo and others relevant facts having bearing upon this case the delinquent employee was awarded the punishment of "warning".

The Director General of Police However, reviewed the matter under the provision of Rule 853(A) of the Bihar Police Manual and upon his consideration awarded him the punishment of withholding of increment of six months vide his order dated 25.06.2020 and the consequential order of the Inspector General Police has also been issued vide his order under Memo No. 228 dated 29.06.2020 without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.

(v) Patna District Departmental Proceeding No. 157/2016 of Inspector Ranjit Kumar

The aforesaid delinquent employee was charged of not taking care of 13 files of proceeding/investigation which was given to him under Rule 828(g) of the Bihar Police Manual. Despite lapse of considerable period of time the files was not examined which is not expected from a Police Officer of the rank of Inspector.

The charged employee filed his explanation on 22.06.2017 before the conducting officer stating inter alia that the police station where he was posted was not having sufficient staff even the Munsi and Reader were not posted in the said Police Station. Stating his satisfactory work and denying the allegation of negligence the delinquent employee prayed for exoneration of the charges.

The Enquiry Officer however found the charges of keeping the files pending and submitted these report dated 06.07.2017.

The matter was looked into by the undersigned in capacity of disciplinary authority. Having regard to the materials available on record including the charge memo exhibits the enquiry report and the explanation of the delinquent employee it was found that for want of necessary staff in the police station, the assigned duty could not be completed in the given circumstances and as such the delinquent employee was punished with "warning" vide my order dated 22.10.2018.

Under the provisions of Rule 853(A) of the Bihar Police Manual the case was reviewed and the Director General of Police in his Considered Opinion set aside the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by me and on the basis of proved charges considered it appropriate for the punishment of "censure" and entry of the same in his service book vide his order dated 01.09.2020 without commenting anything adverse against me. The Inspector General of Police accordingly passed order of "censure" against the said employee and directed for its entry in his service book vide his order dated 05.09.2020.

(vi) Patna District Departmental Proceeding No. 84/2016 of Inspector Sudhir Kumar

The said delinquent employee who at the relevant time was posted at Station House Officer, Kadamkuan was charged of not having registered a case of chain snatching in time. Further he was charged of not acting promptly in a case of domestic violence on complaint. On these charges of negligence and of indiscipline the delinquent employee was suspended and the departmental proceeding was initiated on 11.04.2016 appointing City S.P. (East) to be Enquiry Officer.

The said delinquent employee submitted his explanation dated 05.06.2017 explaining the circumstances of the charges framed against him. He narrated that he has always been careful and discipline to his work. He explained the contribution he made to the department during his service tenure and prayed to exonerate from his charges taking sympathetic view.

The enquiry report was submitted on 13.06.2017 by the Enquiry Officer holding the charges to be partially proved. This matter came for my consideration and having regard to the facts and circumstances and also the finding of the enquiry officer the said delinquent employee was given to the punishment of "warning" by my order dated 10.12.2018.

Again this matter was reviewed at the level of Director General of Police and differing with my finding the order of punishment was modified to withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect and the salary of the period of suspension will be adjusted towards earn leave vide order dated 11.05.2020.

The consequential order under Memo No. 141 dated 15.05.2020 has been passed by the Inspector General of Police without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.

(vii) Patna District Departmental Proceeding No. 378/2018 of Inspector Kamkhaya Narayan Singh

The aforesaid delinquent employee who at the relevant time was posted as Station House Officer, Agamkuan was charged of not having control over his subordinate staff and he did not control over one Agamkaun P.S. Case No. 194/2018. For lack of control over subordinate staff the said delinquent employee was put under suspension and the charge dated 06.08.2018 was framed against him.

The said delinquent employee submitted his explanation which was duly considered by the Enquiry Officer who on the basis of one enquiry report submitted on 24.06.2018 held the charges to be true vide his enquiry report dated 04.10.2018.

This matter came for my consideration and having examining the entire record including charge memo, exhibits, statement of witnesses, the opinion of the Enquiry Officer and also explanation of the delinquent employee.

Having regards to outstanding performance in several Police Cases and taking into account the circumstances narrated in the explanation the case of the delinquent employee was considered sympathetically and the punishment of warning was awarded against him vide order dated 12.12.2018.

Again this matter was reviewed by the Director General of Police under Rule 853(A) of the Bihar Police Manual and upon consideration my order dated 12.12.2018 was set aside and the punishment of withholding of increment of two years and the salary for the period of suspension was held to be adjustable towards earned leave vide order dated 18.05.2020 and similar order dated 22.05.2020 has been passed by the Inspector General of Police without commenting anything adverse against the order passed by me.

9. In aforesaid appeals and proceedings I acted in good faith and with all fairness as Appellate Authority and modified the punishment commensurate with the gravity of misconduct as any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct violets Article 14 of the Constitution of India. My decision of modification of order of punishment is neither illogical nor suffers from procedural impropriety or shocks the conscience of a Judicious Person. It has not been passed in defiance of logic or moral standards. It is one of the cardinal principles of administration of justice that the proceeding must be free from bias of any kind. The delinquent employees have not been found actuated by corrupt motive hence in my considered and careful scrutiny the punishment awarded to them was modified and reduced to the punishment of 'warning'.

10. The order reducing the punishment of delinquent employee was passed upon minute evaluation of the materials on record. The charges against the delinquent employees, their explanation, evidences in support of charges, the enquiry report was also looked into before arriving to final conclusion. The charges were mainly of carelessness, lack of alertness and delay in execution of work and not of corruption or moral turpitude and as such exercising "Quasi-Judicial Power" the proportionate punishment order was passed without being prejudiced in any manner. In my considered opinion the delinquent employee deserved to be criticized for their carelessness and delay in execution of work and as such after careful scrutiny of explanation and in the given circumstances the punishment was reduced to "warning". In terms of Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005, if a Government Servant is awarded "warning" after adopting the prescribed procedure and entered into character roll; in that case it shall have adverse effect on promotion for one year. This Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 apply to every government servant, if a government servant is awarded "warning" after adopting the prescribed procedure and entered into character roll, in that case it shall have adverse effect on promotion for one year. The due care and caution was followed before passing order maintaining consistency.

11. All procedural reasonableness which is the main objective and the requirement of natural justice and to prevent its miscarriage was followed with all fairness in deciding the proceedings and appeals which came for my consideration. I have maintained zero tolerance for corruption and in matters of major charges have punished the delinquent employee proportionate to the wrongs committed by them.

12. The reasons of disagreement with the finding of disciplinary authority was recorded on the basis of evidence of each case by due application of mind inferred from the facts of each case without any discrimination and undue favour. An error of interpretation of law can't be a ground for misconduct unless it is deliberate and actuated by mala fides. If an error of law would constitute misconduct, it would be difficult to discharge the function of a quasi-judicial authority without any fear. Such an action can also be corrected by the higher authorities. Promotion to an employee is a natural consequence so it may not be inferred as extraneous consideration.

13. The forum of appellate authority is mainly to prevent miscarriage of justice. The order passed by disciplinary authority is always amenable to correction by the appellate authority and similarly the order of the appellate authority is amenable to correction by the revisional authority. In any event the departmental proceeding should not be conducted in a slip-shod manner. Exercising this quasi-judicial authority, the disciplinary/appellate/revisional authorities have been taking corrective measures by enhancing/reducing the punishment in exercise of their quasi-judicial power. The review of such orders in other police ranges would show that even in serious offences the order of punishment of dismissal has been reduced to minor punishment in different police ranges. Such examples are found in Sahabad Range as mentioned in column-9 and 10 of the charge sheet at page-29 whereby in Rohtas district D.P. No. 5/2017 the charges of taking bribe of 1.5 lacs for appointment as constable was proved against the delinquent employee and the disciplinary authority passed order of dismissal which was reduced to the penalty of withholding of two annual increments. In another matter of Shahabad range being Rohtas district DP No. 12/2017 where withholding of increment of six months equivalent to one black mark was passed by the disciplinary authority was reviewed at revisional level and the revisional authority in exercise of power vested in him set aside the said order of punishment even when charges were of corruption. There are several such examples in different police ranges where the disciplinary/appellate authorities have passed order exonerating the delinquent employee even where charges were proved against the delinquent employees.

14. That in my 17 years of service I have worked to the complete satisfaction of all my seniors on all standards. My Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) have been throughout "Excellent". My ACRs have been written up to 2020 and my seniors and higher authorities have given excellent remarks in the columns of control over crime, detection of crime and maintaining discipline among the subordinates. My performance has always been appreciated in all my ACRs. Several letters of appreciation have been given by higher authorities on my performance in crime control. By motivating subordinate officials several hardcore criminals were arrested and crime was controlled remarkably. I worked hard for crime control, for maintaining communal harmony, peace and security in the society, effective and efficient investigation of supervision of cases, carried out welfare activities for police personnel and their families, disposed of pending departmental proceedings and appeal, inspected and directed subordinate functionaries for improvement of their performance, took creative initiatives for the systematic change in policy and also worked for redressal of public grievance and solution to their problem. By my efforts several cases were tried expeditiously and several accused persons were awarded punishment in record time and several persons were arrested. Innovative measures such as "Madadgar Police" was introduced by me for the welfare of common people which earned much appreciation. My contribution and achievements to the department is all given in my ACR which speaks of itself. The charges leveled against me are vague and they are based on conjecture and surmises. It is and baseless hence not maintainable in the eyes of law. The appellate authority or the disciplinary authority acting under quasi-judicial power and has protection of law as given by Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to protect the quasi-judicial power and has passed several orders including one in the matter of "Zunjarrao Bhikhaji Nagarkar" extract whereof is as under:-

"If, every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi-judicial officers like the appellate. Since in sum of substance misconduct is sought to be inferred by the appellant having committed an error of law, the charge-sheet on the face of it does not proceed on any legal premise rendering it liable to be quashed. In other words, to maintain any charge-sheet against a quasi-judicial authority something more has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law, e.g., in the nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the quasi-judicial order. Since nothing of the sort is alleged herein the impugned charge-sheet is rendered illegal. The charge-sheet, if sustained, will thus impinge upon the confidence and independent functioning of a quasi-judicial authority. The entire system of administrative adjudication where under quasi-judicial powers are conferred on administrative authorities, would fall in disrepute if officers performing such functions are inhibited in performing their functions without fear or favour because of the constant threat of disciplinary proceedings".

15. It is a known fact that procedural errors cannot be cured at the appellate stage. Initially I was asked by the police headquarter to file my explanation with regard to few appeals decided by me as appellate authority but subsequently it was enlarged and few proceedings decided by me in capacity of disciplinary authority have also been included giving disregard to the settled principle of law. Moreover, most of the cases which came for my consideration are of a period prior to my joining as DIG, Central Range, Patna.

16. For the reasons stated above none of these sections of All India (Conduct and Discipline) Rule, 1968 as given in aforesaid memo is attracted against me and as such the charges do not deserve to be accepted and accordingly they are not accepted by me.

17. In the given circumstances it is evident that in exercise of the statutory power I acted diligently and carefully and never omitted the prescribed condition of fairness. Even in the guidelines by PHQ 55/350203/L1 dated 25.01.2018 it has been prescribed that the appellate or competent authority must examine the order of punishment on the basis of evidence and proportionality. The appellate authority in his wisdom has again been conferred with the power to confirm/reduce/enhance and set aside the order of punishment. Again by PHQ letter 124/L1 dated 10.02.2020 all concerned have been directed that the order of punishment must be proportionate and departmental proceeding is to be initiated only in serious matter and there is no relevance of initiation of departmental proceeding for minor punishment. The order passed by me in capacity of Disciplinary or Appellate Authority which have been questioned in the given memo are not against the legal norms being followed by appellate or revisional authority.

18. For the reasons explained herein above be undersigned humbly requests to consider my written statement and exonerate me from the charges.

And for this I shall ever be thankful to you.

Sincerely yours

Rajesh Kumar, I.P.S.,

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Begusarai Range, Begusarai."

18. Text of Charge Memo and Article of Charge provides that acts of applicant as Disciplinary/Appellate Authority, for period from 01.05.2017 to 14.08.2019, is indicative of his arbitrariness, indiscipline, administrative incompetence, apathy towards duty and lack of truthfulness and is against the dignity of the Senior Police Officer, which is against All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968 Rule - 3(1), 3(1A)(i), 3(1A)(iii), 3(1A)(iv), 3(2), 3(2B)(viii), 3(2B)(x) and 3(3)(i).

19. It has only been explained in Charge Memo & Articles of charge that during said period applicant in certain Departmental Proceeding, in capacity of Appellate Authority, he acquitted the delinquents on extraneous grounds like "probable promotion in future" without considering the facts and evidences and as a result of which the disqualified officer were also promoted and similarly, in the departmental proceedings conducted against the inspectors, despite being found guilty by the conducting officer, he acquitted them in capacity of Disciplinary Authority and in some of the Departmental Proceedings there were procedural error in conduction of Disciplinary Inquiry. That serious allegations were there against the delinquent officials like putting halt/suppress certain act of offences, reducing the seriousness of offence, failure in crime control and allowing benefits of Section-167(2) to the accused by delinquent officials but disregard for the duties against the delinquents were not considered as bad by the applicant. That the work done by applicant as disciplinary authority and supervisory officer has been doubtful, he has been instrumental in providing shelter to incompetent officials in crime control and allowing promotion of unskilled officers in their duties.

20. Text of Charge Memo & Articles of Charges general terminology as "in certain Departmental Proceeding" or "delinquents" or "departmental proceedings conducted against the inspectors" or "incompetent officials" has been used but nowhere particular of those departmental proceedings or even name of inspectors/sub inspectors/delinquent officials or any other specific detail has been given in Charge Memo. The charges leveled against the applicant in Charge-Memo thus are non-specific, cryptic and vague.

21. Learned Counsel Mr. Harsh Singh Advocate, appearing for respondent's No. 2 to 6 during argument when his attention was drawn to Memorandum of charges showed his inability to specify the details of those cases and did contend that the details of those cases is deducible from list of documents & witnesses attached with charge memorandum and it cannot be said that applicant was not aware, applicant in his reply has answered about those cases. There is no merit in said contention.

22. Further every error committed by a quasi-judicial authority, however gross it may be, should not be attributed to improper motives. The appellate and revisional forums are provided on the pre-supposition that persons may go wrong in decision making, on facts as well as law. Task of decision making requires that the authority should feel fearless to give honest opinion while acting as quasi-judicial authority. Even if there was possibility on a given set of facts to arrive at a different conclusion, it is no ground to indict a public servant for misconduct for taking one view. If a faulty order of a quasi-judicial authority is taken as a ground for initiating departmental proceeding, the officer will be in constant act independently or fearlessly. Merely because the order is wrong, it does not warrant initiating of departmental proceedings against the public servant, unless he was actuated by extraneous considerations or oblique motives. The remedy for errors committed by a quasi-judicial authority is appeal or revision to the forum or authority provided under the statute for that purpose. It is in discharge of his functions with independence and without fear of consequences. The general rule applicable in the case of the issuance of a wrong order is that it is liable to be corrected in appeal or revision. A public servant when he is acting judicially, even if he commits an error and passes an erroneous order, he would be protected from legal action. His accountability in respect of the orders passed by him is ensured by provisions for appeal and revision.

23. Taking note of entirety and the facts, we already have held that the charges leveled against the applicant in Charge-Memo are cryptic & vague. In written statement of respondents details & particulars of disciplinary proceedings & appeal pertaining to which arbitrariness, indiscipline, administrative incompetence, apathy of applicant towards duty and lack of truthfulness has been alleged, has not been disclosed. The Memorandum dated 10.12.2020, issued to the applicant, upon the order of Hon'ble Governor, Bihar and under the signature of Additional Secretary to Government of Bihar Department of Home (Home Police), as contained in Annexure-A/1 thus cannot be said to be legally sustainable, deserves quashing and accordingly is quashed and is and set aside. Consequently Sankalp dated 17th June 2021, issued upon the orders of Hon'ble Governor, Bihar and under the signature of Secretary to Government of Bihar, Department of Home (Home Police), as contained in Annexure-A/3, also stand quashed and set aside.

24. Applicant also has prayed for direction to the respondents to pass order of promotion of applicant to I.G. Police w.e.f. his junior batch-mate. It has been in OA that because of this erroneous charge memorandum he was not given promotion to the post of Inspector General of police and his three batch mate, including two juniors, namely Vijay Kumar Verma & Sri Suresh Chaudhry have been promoted to the post of Inspector General of police vide notification dated 29/12/2020. In WS filed the stand of respondent qua claim of applicant for granting promotion to the rank of Inspector General of Police is that a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion on the post of Inspector General of Police for the year 2021 was held on 16.12.2020 for the 2003 batch of I.P.S. Officers. The recommendation regarding the promotion of the applicant, vide Memo dated 10.12.2020 has been kept in sealed envelope due to the departmental proceeding initiated.

25. During argument this prayer for direction to the respondents to pass order of promotion of applicant to I.G. Police was not pressed for seriously. It was only argued from the side of applicant that applicant is at the verge of promotion and deliberately, with ulterior motive time of Charge Memo has been chosen to deprive the applicant of his due promotion of I.G. The material available on record is not sufficient to give any positive finding/direction qua promotion of applicant to I.G. Police. However, if the recommendation regarding the promotion of the applicant is in sealed envelope due to the departmental proceeding initiated on the basis of the Charge Memo quashed above, the respondents shall open the sealed envelope and act as per permissible procedure on recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee found in the envelop, if this order passed in OA in hand is not challenged. However, if order passed in OA in hand is challenged, respondents shall act as per direction, if any, given by the Higher Forum where this order passed in this OA is challenged.

26. To the extent of aforesaid finding/direction, the OA is allowed with costs. The cost imposed is quantified to be Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousand only).