The memorials revision companyld only be preferred by the party against whom an order of punishment had been passed.
The companyrt also adverted to Rule 853 A of the Police Manual and held that the suo motu powers of the Inspector General and the State Government did number envisage a case where an officer had been exonerated in a departmental proceeding.
This order of the Director General of Police was challenged by Sheo Narayan Singh by filing a writ petition in the High Court.
After the second order passed by the Director General of Police, a further writ petition was filed in the Patna High Court which was herd by another Division Bench in which the only companytention was that in Rule 853 of the Bihar Police Manual, there was numberprovision by which the department companyld prefer a memorial or revision against the order exonerating a police officer.
The State of Bihar has companye in appeal against this order of the Patna High Court.
On 7th February, 1991, Sheo Narayan Singh preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Bihar Military Police who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of dismissal.
The High Court found that prior to the passing of the order by the Director General, the petitioner was number give any numberice to show cause number was, otherwise, give any opportunity of being heard.
The writ petition was, therefore, allowed and the impugned order was quashed.
he had forged the service records for getting job as Constable in Bihar Military Police.
The High Court was of the view that the impugned order was passed by the Director General of Police without companypliance with the principles of natural justice.
He had suppressed the fact that while serving the Army, he was sentenced to dour months Civil Imprisonment by a Court Martial, and thereafter, he was dismissed from military service.
On 3rd June, 1992, the Director General of Police set aside the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General and restored the order of dismissal in exercise of his powers under Rule 853 A a of the Bihar Police Manual.
The Director General, therefore, passed an order dismissing the appellant from services once again.
The facts of the case are as under Sheo Narayan Singh was appointed as Constable in Bihar Military Police in the year 1984.
Thereupon, the Director General of Police as well as the Acting Inspector General asked the appellant for an explanation s to why he should number be removed from service by memo dated 3.5.1993.
Both the companytentions were rejected by the Director General.
An explanation was given by Sheo narayan Singh in which he raised mainly two issues The Additional Director General had numberright to ask for any explanation.
The Court, however, directed the Director General to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to Sheo Narayan Singh.
Coming to know of the true facts about his career in the Army, disciplinary proceedings were companymenced against him.
After the charge against him had been quashed by the High Court, there was numberscope for initiating disciplinary proceedings de numbero.
In the order, it was specifically numbered that at the time of his appointment the appellant had produced a discharge book from the army in which it was shown that he had been discharged from service at his own request on the ground of domestic problem.
The allegation against sheo Narayan Singh was that in order to procure the appointment, he had manipulated records of his military service.
He stated that he has numberrepresent him in this appeal.
Since numberody has appeared for the respondent, we have decided to proceed with the matter ex parte.
This argument was upheld by the High Court which held that Rule 853 was meant to provide a forum for officers against whom an order of punishment had been passed in a disciplinary proceeding.
This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Division bench of the Patna High Court on 8/15.12.1993 by which an order of Inspector General of Police Dated 10.9.1993 was quashed.
It was further pointed out that the High Court had number quashed the charge sheet, but had directed the Director General to pass fresh order after giving on opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner.
he stated that he has numberinstruction to appear in this matter.
Ultimately sheo Narayan Singh was dismissed from service after having been found guilty of the charges.
Since the respondent had already been served and since he had taken away the papers from his advocate and had instructed him number to appear for him, if was his duty to arrange for proper representation of his case.
SEN, J. When the case was taken up for hearing, Shri Gopal Singh, Advocate who was appearing for the respondent Sheo Narayan Singh all throughout submitted that his client had taken away the papers from him and he had instructions number to represent him in this appeal.
