JUDGMENT : S. S. Hasan, J.- The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexures-12 and 14 being the ORDER :of dismissal and the ORDER :of rejection of appeal respectively. 2. It is not disputed that the petitioner was Officer-in-Charge of Jogta Police Station in the district of Dhanbad. The penal consequences with which he has been visited arise out of two charges framed against him by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, after cause had been shown and inquiry held and conducted by one Saligram Mahto, who was Assistant Public Prosecutor at. Dhanbad. The Inquiring Officer found the petitioner guilty which resulted in ORDER :of dismissal by the Deputy Inspector General and its approval-by the Inspector General by dismissal of the appeal. 3. Several points were raised of various due and value by learned counsel for the petitioner, but for the purposes of this application two points are weighty enough to annihilate the ORDER :of dismissal. (i) Only two prosecution witnesses had been examined by the Inquiring Officer. They are Chandrika Prasad, Inspector and M.A. Saiyeed, Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is not disputed that these two witnesses were examined in the absence of the petitioner and the petition of recall for examination and cross-examination did not bear any result in the sense the witnesses were recalled only for cross-examination and for that purpose too they failed to turn up. Hence the entire consequence of the inquiry is based on ex-parte evidence which cannot be countenanced or tolerated. (ii) A petition was also filed before the Superintendent of Police asking for three documents specifically which, according to the petitioner were relevant for his inquiry and to meet the charges against him. According to the averments made in the petition, these documents were not supplied. This is another ground which by itself is sufficient to destroy the penal consequences visited upon the petitioner. 4. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid two grounds is that the application must be allowed. But before I part with the JUDGMENT :, I would also like to mention a point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Assistant Public Prosecutor of Dhanbad had been appointed the Inquiring Officer. 4. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid two grounds is that the application must be allowed. But before I part with the JUDGMENT :, I would also like to mention a point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Assistant Public Prosecutor of Dhanbad had been appointed the Inquiring Officer. The allegation it appears was that he had not sent the memo of evidence and had not recorded the first information report in a case which was being prosecuted by the Assistant Public prosecutor concerned Shri Saligram Mahto Although no objection was raised by this petitioner at the initial stage even half heartedly in this application, yet I must express my deepest regret at the procedure adopted. I do not mean to say that Shri Saligram Mahto was a person who was biased or was not a person who would be just and fair yet his association with the police case concerned was enough to create a reasonable fear of bias in the mind of the petitioner. 5. Unfortunately, no counter-affidavit has been filed in this case nor it is being opposed by any State counsel today. 6. In the circumstances, spelt out by me the application is allowed and Annexures-12 and 14 are struck down. The petitioner shall be restored to his service from the date he was rendered ineffective by suspension and dismissal. He will be entitled to remuneration and emoluments etc. from the date he was suspended, adjusting, however the amount already received in any form by the petitioner from the State Government. 7. The application is allowed as above with costs.