Judgment Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the final order passed by the Commandant, B.M.P.-9, Jamalpur dated 27.10.2008 (part of Annexure-14) in the departmental proceeding (No. 7/2007) terminating his Services: order dated 11.5.2009 (part of Annexure-15) passed by the D.I.G., B.M.P. (North Zone), Muzaffarpur, dismissing his appeal and order dated 30.4.2010 (part of Annexure-16) passed by the D.G.P., Bihar rejecting his appeal memorial. He has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to restore his Services with all consequential benefits. . 2. As per the pleadings, facts of the case are that when petitioner was posted as constable in Bihar Military Police (for short 'B.M.P.'), 9 Battalion, Jamalpur, he was asked by the Commandant, through his letter dated 26.4.2006 (Annexure-1), to submit his explanation as to why a proceeding under section 828(Ga) of the Bihar Police Manual be not initiated against him for his omissions and commissions in respect of submission of travelling allowance bills. Earlier petitioner had been issued one charge memo dated 13.4.2006 (Annexure-2) levelling charges of unnatural sexual activity, extortion of money from other constables, misleading seniors, indulging into forgery and indulging into politics of vote etc. and he was asked to show cause within 7 days failing which the proposed proceeding was to be initiated. Yet another charge memo dated 29.8.2006 (Annexure-3) was served on him with charge of having prepared inflated T.A. bills of some constables enabling them to draw excess amount. Another charge memo, also dated 29.8.2006 (Annexure-4), was issued to him with charge of disrespectful conduct in front of the Company commandant. It is pleaded that he replied to all the charges in time, denying them, but no final orders were passed. Meanwhile, under orders dated 12.2.2007 (Annexure-5), petitioner alongwith others, was promoted to the rank of Hawaldar and, by order dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure-6), was transferred to B.M.P.10 at Patna. 3. However, petitioner was not relieved immediately by the Commandant and a departmental proceeding (No.7/2007) was initiated against him and a charge memo, containing 5 charges, was served on him through memo' no. 128 dated 16.4.2007 (Annexure-8). Finally, by order no. 994/2007 dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure-7), he was relieved and was issued 'kamman' (marching orders) on 22.8.2007 (Annexure-7/1). 3. However, petitioner was not relieved immediately by the Commandant and a departmental proceeding (No.7/2007) was initiated against him and a charge memo, containing 5 charges, was served on him through memo' no. 128 dated 16.4.2007 (Annexure-8). Finally, by order no. 994/2007 dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure-7), he was relieved and was issued 'kamman' (marching orders) on 22.8.2007 (Annexure-7/1). In between this period, he was directed by the Inquiry Officer, through his order passed on 19.8.2007 (Annexure7/2) to appear in the proceeding on the next date at Tarapur, which was fixed as 21.8.2007, as one witness was posted there on account of official work. 4. Finally, the Conducting Officer submitted his report on 15.8.2008 in which he found the petitioner guilty of the charges, and as such, he was asked by the Commandant, B.M.P.-9, through his memo no.2794 dated 2.9.2008, to submit his second show cause (both Annexure-13 series). Petitioner submitted his second show cause on 1.10.2008, but without looking to it final order was passed by the respondent no. 5 (the Commandant, B.M.P.9), vide memo no. 3535 dated 28.10.2008, dismissing him from service (both Annexure-14 series). 5. It is pleaded that, at best the Commandant could transfer the proceeding to the new unit of the petitioner where he had been transferred, but he did not do so and continued with the proceeding himself as he was biased and was having a vindictive approach against him since, being representative of the union, petitioner had raised voice against him. In Paragraph nos. 14 to 19 of the writ petition, petitioner has dealt with his defence to the five charges and has produced deposition of some witnesses recorded in the proceeding as Annexures-9, 10 and 11. It is also pleaded in the writ application that petitioner was not provided with the exhibited documents relied upon by the Conducting Officer and the commandant, in spite of several demands by him. It is also pleaded that he took this ground in his appeal also but still no action was taken. It is also pleaded that petitioner was not given chance to examine defence witnesses for which he had submitted letters dated 30.9.2008 and 21.8.2007 (Annexure-12 series), and requested orally also. It is alleged that both the Conducting Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were in collusion and were adamant to dismiss him. It is also pleaded that petitioner was not given chance to examine defence witnesses for which he had submitted letters dated 30.9.2008 and 21.8.2007 (Annexure-12 series), and requested orally also. It is alleged that both the Conducting Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were in collusion and were adamant to dismiss him. It is said that the Commandant of B.M.P.-9 and the Conducting Officer were prejudiced against him and he had given an application in this regard on 31.12.2007 but no action was taken and his request for holding the proceeding in some other battalion was not considered. It is said that out of the 5 charges, charge nos. 1, 2 and 3 were different and charge nos. 4 and 5 were different, but they were clubbed together, which was totally against the provisions of the Bihar Police Manual. It is pleaded that holding of the departmental proceeding, in the manner it was conducted, was totally illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with law and dismissal of the petitioner was disproportionate to the offence alleged, considering his long service of 26 years without any complain. 6. Against the punishment order petitioner moved in appeal on 10.11.2008 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, (North Zone), Muzaffarpur, who rejected the same by order dated 11.5.2009 (both Annexure-15 series). Petitioner filed appeal also before the Director General of Police on 26.6.2009, but this was also rejected by order contained in memo no. 1664 dated 30.4.2010 (both Annexure-16 series) without application of mind, though charge no. 5 was found by him not proved. Petitioner has filed a writ application, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 11896 of 2007 challenging the proceeding, which is still pending, but he has not moved this Court earlier against the final order. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case on behalf of respondent no. 6. It is stated that when H. Company was on deputation at Jehanabad, one sepoy-635, Binay Kumar had asked for 8+2 days leave. In this respect one Memo No. 127/H dated 13.3.2005 was issued to him for act of indiscipline. Subsequently one departmental proceeding no. 26/2005 was initiated against him. In the proceeding said Binay Kumar was exonerated, but it came to light that petitioner was involved in dirty politics, fraudulent activities, Selfishness, sex perversity etc. An enquiry by one Dy.S.P., Md. Mansoor Ahmad followed, who submitted his report on 30.3.2006 (Annexure-A). Subsequently one departmental proceeding no. 26/2005 was initiated against him. In the proceeding said Binay Kumar was exonerated, but it came to light that petitioner was involved in dirty politics, fraudulent activities, Selfishness, sex perversity etc. An enquiry by one Dy.S.P., Md. Mansoor Ahmad followed, who submitted his report on 30.3.2006 (Annexure-A). On the basis of the report, the said charge memo dated 13.4.2006 alongwith relevant documents was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause within seven days. Other acts of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner, namely of preparing excess T.A. bills of three persons enabling them to withdraw excess amount, of having appeared before Company Commandant improperly dressed and in indisciplined manner also came to light in the meanwhile. Matter was enquired into by one Dy.S.P., J.P. Narayan, who submitted his reports dated 23.7.2006, 23.8.2006 and 24.8.2006 (Annexure-B series). Accordingly the said charge memos nos. 774 and 777 dated 29.8.2006 alongwith relevant documents were issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause in ten days. The show, causes submitted by the petitioner on 24.4.2006, 14.9.2006 and 14.9.2006 in respect of the said charges were not found satisfactory. Hence, petitioner alongwith witnesses were called for oral evidence. Witnesses were examined in presence of the petitioner and he was given four chances to defend himself, but he did not say anything. Hence, all the charges were clubbed together and a fresh memo of charges by memo no.128 dated 16.4.2007 was issued to the petitioner and he was asked to show cause by 25.4.2007. His show cause was found unsatisfactory. Hence, the departmental proceeding no.7/07 was initiated against him. In the proceeding, many witnesses were examined and cross-examined. On conclusion, a second show cause was issued, which he submitted on 1.10.2008. After considering the same and the records, punishment was awarded to him. His appeal and appeal memorial were found devoid of merits and were also dismissed. After dealing with the details of the charges and' evidence It is pleaded that the proceeding and punishment was in accordance with law, perfectly valid, based on proved charges on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence, truth and was impartial. 8. Petitioner has filed an affidavit labelled as 'supplementary affidavit as well as rejoinder to the counter affidavit'. In this affidavit, he has mainly dealt with the charges. In a nutshell his submissions are that charge nos. 8. Petitioner has filed an affidavit labelled as 'supplementary affidavit as well as rejoinder to the counter affidavit'. In this affidavit, he has mainly dealt with the charges. In a nutshell his submissions are that charge nos. 1, 2 and 3 were self contradictory and he was not allowed to examine witnesses: the article of charges were vague: the Disciplinary Authority, in his order, has gone beyond the charge which shows his bias. The explanation/show cause filed by him in respect of charge nos. 3 and 4 have been produced by him alongwith this affidavit as Annexure- 19 series. He has further submitted that the statement of witnesses produced in the enquiry completely exonerate him. The final show cause submitted by him on 18.4.2007 in the preliminary enquiry has been produced by him alongwith this affidavit as Annexure-20. He has further submitted that charge no. 4 was false and was concocted by Ravindra Prasad Yadav, the Company Commandant, as he became furious after he saw his letter dated 8.5.2006, which contained allegations against him. This letter has been annexed as Annexure-21 with this affidavit. He has further submitted that he was not given adequate opportunity to call his defence witnesses, who were all police personnel and posted at different places, as he was asked to produce them at short notices of a day or two and at times at Katihar or Patna. His application for adequate opportunity was not looked into. The application he submitted and the cross-examination of the said Ravindra Prasad Yadav are annexed with the affidavit as Annexure-22 series. He has further submitted that the charge of sodomy was not supported by the evidence of witnesses, which charge has not been found proved by the Reviewing Authority. He filed an application also, dated 10.3.2010, after his appeal was dispatched to the Director General of Police, claiming that he has been harassed and has been dismissed under a plot. Copy of this application has been brought on record as Annexure-23 with the affidavit. Petitioner has alleged bias against the Enquiry Officer and has brought on record copies of his applications dated 11.8.2007 and 13.8.2007, submitted to the Commandant, B.M.P.-9 in this regard, as Annexure-24 Series. Copy of another application dated 14.7.2008, submitted for recording statement of material witnesses, has been annexed as Annexure-25. Petitioner has alleged bias against the Enquiry Officer and has brought on record copies of his applications dated 11.8.2007 and 13.8.2007, submitted to the Commandant, B.M.P.-9 in this regard, as Annexure-24 Series. Copy of another application dated 14.7.2008, submitted for recording statement of material witnesses, has been annexed as Annexure-25. He has further submitted that in his final defence dated 19.7.2008 also, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-26, he took the stand that the proceeding had been started/conducted with a mala fide intention and he requested that statement of defence witnesses, named by him, may be taken, but to no avail. He has further alleged bias against the Commandant/Disciplinary Authority on account of which he had withheld his pay by order dated 17.10.2007, on account of his absence for 53 days from 17.5.2007 to 11.7.2007, on the basis of report of the Company Commander dated 15.6.2007, against which he had submitted representation dated 12.12.2007. Copies of the said three documents have been brought on record as Annexure-27 Series. Another example of biasness of the Commandant, respondent no. 5, cited in the affidavit was that even after promotion and transfer of the petitioner, he was not relieved for months and his L.P.C. was not issued. Finally, it was issued only when, on his application, the I.G., B.M.P., North Zone, Patna intervened. Application dated 20.8.2007 and 1.10.2007 submitted in this regard are annexed as Annexure-28 series. Petitioner has also submitted that, after his transfer to Saharsa, he had requested for transfer of the proceeding there, which the Commandant, B.M.P.-9 opposed, vide his memo dated 12.10.2007. Petitioner submitted an application in this regard to I.G., Military Police, Bihar, Patna on 31.12.2007. But the Commandant, B.M.P.-9, through his letter dated 25.1.2008, on the one hand requested Commandant B.M.P.-12 to direct the petitioner to make himself available in the proceeding on 28.1.2008 at Patna, and, on the other, directed the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry ex parte even if petitioner was absent. These three documents have been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-29 series with the affidavit. It is submitted that the delay in the proceeding was not on account of the petitioner, rather due to non-production of departmental witnesses, which was evident from the letters dated 19.10.2007 and 29.6.2008, which have been annexed with the affidavit as Annexure-30 Series. These three documents have been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-29 series with the affidavit. It is submitted that the delay in the proceeding was not on account of the petitioner, rather due to non-production of departmental witnesses, which was evident from the letters dated 19.10.2007 and 29.6.2008, which have been annexed with the affidavit as Annexure-30 Series. Further submissions are that from a bare reading of the enquiry report it would be evident that it was written on the dictates of the Disciplinary Authority. In fact the Disciplinary Authority has acted as complainant, as prosecutor and also as Disciplinary Authority, all together, which shows the bias carried by him against the petitioner. At best he could be a witness in the proceeding in view of the charges framed from his personal knowledge, and not a Disciplinary Authority. In these circumstances, petitioner had requested higher authorities to change the place of proceeding and the enquiry officer. It is submitted that several minor and major charges have been clubbed together in a most mechanical manner and the enquiry report is based on the statements and reports in the preliminary enquiry, which vitiates the entire proceeding. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority have acted in a mechanical manner, although petitioner had taken all these grounds in his applications. It is pleaded that the petitioner had given a list of defence witnesses to the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer had given one adjournment and had fixed 20.8.2007 at Katihar for the witnesses to be present, with a request to the Commandant to release them. But the commandant did not release them, and the Enquiry Officer did not fix another date for their evidence. Lastly, it is submitted that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges proved, as the Reviewing Authority has not found the charge no. 5, of sodomy, as proved, and in view of the unblemished 26 years of service of the petitioner. Petitioner has also filed a seParate rejoinder to the counter affidavit, but in the same, to controvert the statements made in the counter affidavit, he has simply relied upon the pleadings made in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit. 9. 5, of sodomy, as proved, and in view of the unblemished 26 years of service of the petitioner. Petitioner has also filed a seParate rejoinder to the counter affidavit, but in the same, to controvert the statements made in the counter affidavit, he has simply relied upon the pleadings made in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his case has filed a chart of chronological list of dates and events and another chart of main points of challenge to the impugned order of punishment with corresponding Paragraphs/Annexures in support of them from the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit and the citations of authorities relied upon. As per the chart, the main points of challenge to the punishment order are as follows: (i) The impugned order of punishment suffers from biasness of Disciplinary Authority as well as of the Enquiry Officer. This issue was raised by the petitioner during the enquiry itself, as detailed in the referred Paragraphs. (ii) Charges were vague. In connection with this point, reliance has been placed on Apex Court judgments in the cases of Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1986 SC 995 ): M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors. [ (2006)5 SCC 88 ] and Union of India and Others Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar [ (2009)12 SCC 78 ] [Paras 21, 22, 30, 31, 33, 34 and 35] (iii) Several charges were clubbed in one charge-sheet. Charges were of different nature, hence, there clubbing in one charge-sheet was violative of Appx. 49 of Police Manual, Vol. 3. (iv) The final enquiry report was based on preliminary report. (v) There were violations of Principles of Natural Justice in the following manner: (a) Petitioner was refused opportunity to examine defence witnesses. (There was no defence assistant in the case) (b) He was not allowed to further cross-examine P.W.1 and defence witnesses were not produced in the proceeding, in spite of repeated requests by the petitioner, which shows bias of Disciplinary Authority and Enquiry Officer. (c) Enquiry Officer based his findings on the report of the preliminary enquiries, but petitioner's request for being allowed to cross-examine the officer (J.P. Narain), who held the preliminary enquiry, was refused. Enquiry into charge nos. 3 and, 4 were refused arbitrarily. (c) Enquiry Officer based his findings on the report of the preliminary enquiries, but petitioner's request for being allowed to cross-examine the officer (J.P. Narain), who held the preliminary enquiry, was refused. Enquiry into charge nos. 3 and, 4 were refused arbitrarily. In connection with this point, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgments in the cases of State of Uttaranchal and Ors. Vs. Kharak Singh [ (2008)8 SCC 236 (Para-15)] and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon [ (2009)2 SCC 541 (Paras 13-15, 17 & 18)] (vi) Disciplinary Authority was himself complainant in the case. He could at best, be a material witness only. He became a Judge in his own cause. In connection with this point, reliance has been placed on Apex Court judgments in' the cases of Union of India Vs. H.C. Goel ( AIR 1964 SC 364 ): Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. ( AIR 1978 SC 1277 ): State of Uttaranchal and Ors. Vs. Kharak Singh [ (2008)8 SCC 236 (Para 17)] and Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [ (2010)10 SCC 539 (Paras 9, 16, 21 to 28 & 37)]. (vii) Findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and arbitrary in the following manner:- (a) Reply of the petitioner was not looked into and the Enquiry Officer did not assign reasons for his conclusions. (b) P.Ws., supporting petitioner, were not considered and Ext.-6 was not considered. (c) P.W. 9 (Upendra Mandal) and P.W. 10 (Priyaranjan Sinha) fully supported petitioner, but were not considered. In connection with this point, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgments in the case of M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors. [ (2006)5 SCC 88 ] and Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors. [ (1999)2 SCC 10 (Paras 36 and 37)] (viii) Disciplinary Authority did not propose any specific punishment in the second show cause notice (dated 2.9.2008). In connection with this point reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mathura Prasad VS. Union of India and Ors. [ (2007)1 SCC 437 [: 2007(1) PLJR (SC)146] (Paras 15 & 16)] (ix) No reason has been assigned by the Disciplinary Authority while awarding punishment and he simply based the order of dismissal on the findings in the Enquiry Report. Union of India and Ors. [ (2007)1 SCC 437 [: 2007(1) PLJR (SC)146] (Paras 15 & 16)] (ix) No reason has been assigned by the Disciplinary Authority while awarding punishment and he simply based the order of dismissal on the findings in the Enquiry Report. In connection with this point, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgments in the cases of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim [ (2004)10 SCC 87 ] and G. Vallikumari Vs.Andhra Education Society and Ors.. [ (2010)2 SCC 497 (Paras 19 & 20)] (x) This is a case of gross discrimination + violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the claimants of the T.A. bills, the Accountant, the Company Commander and the Munshi (Nawal Kishore Singh) were not proceeded against and the petitioner, who was in no way connected with the charge, was dismissed. In connection with this point, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgments in the cases of Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [ (2006)4 SCC 713 (Paras 44 to 47)] and State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha [ (2010)2 SCC 772 (Paras 28 & 27)] (xi) Department has failed to discharge the onus to prove the charge nos. 1 to 3 as nothing has been brought on record, nor any oral evidence was led to establish that petitioner was required to look after the official works, to maintain the dispatch or issue register or the 'dak'. In connection with this point, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Orissa Mining Corporation and Another Vs. Ananda Chandra Prusty [ (1996)11 SCC 600 (Paras 3, 5 & 6)] (xii) This is a case of no evidence. Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority should arrive at conclusions on the basis of some evidence and not on suspicions or probabilities. For proving charge nos. 1 and 3 T.A. Bills were not produced and marked as exhibits and for proving charge no. 2 Dispatch Register or at least Sl. No. 110/111 of the said Register were not exhibited. In connection with this point, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgments in the cases of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. [ (2009)2 SCC 570 ] and Union of India and Others Vs. 2 Dispatch Register or at least Sl. No. 110/111 of the said Register were not exhibited. In connection with this point, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgments in the cases of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. [ (2009)2 SCC 570 ] and Union of India and Others Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar [ (2009)12 SCC 78 (Paras 20, 22 & 30)] (xiii) No reason was assigned by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority for rejecting the appeal and revision and they have simply relied upon the comments of the Disciplinary Authority, except charge no. 5, in respect of which observations of Reviewing Authority differs from that of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. In connection with this point, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgments in the cases of Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem & Ors. Vs. Madhusudhan Rao [ (2008)3 SCC 469 (Paras 9, 11 & 20)]: Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [ (2006)4 SCC 713 (Paras 32-36 & 44-47)] and Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetria Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. [ (2009)4 SCC 240 (Paras 5, 8, 9 & 11)]. (xiv) Order of punishment is disproportionate, unreasonable and irrational as the gravest charge (no. 5) has not been found proved by the Reviewing Authority. In connection with this point, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgments in the cases of U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. [ (2000)3 SCC 450 ]= AIR 2003 SC 1377 (Para 11): Union of India & Anr. Vs. G. Ganayutham [ (1997)7 SCC 463 ] and Dev Singh Vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. [ (2003)8 SCC 9 ]. (xv) Charges framed suffer from various infirmities and charge nos. 4 & 5 are result of malice and grudge, viz.:- (a) For charge nos. 1, 2 and 3 no ulterior motive of petitioner has been alleged/proved. He had not incurred any financial gain. (b) Charge No.4 was levelled out of malice and grudge. Petitioner's explanation was not looked by Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. Annexure-21 established that on 8.5.2006, he had made his show cause levelling serious allegations against him. Earlier also petitioner had made complaints against him. (c) For charge no. 5 constables have been disbelieved by the Reviewing Authority. (b) Charge No.4 was levelled out of malice and grudge. Petitioner's explanation was not looked by Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. Annexure-21 established that on 8.5.2006, he had made his show cause levelling serious allegations against him. Earlier also petitioner had made complaints against him. (c) For charge no. 5 constables have been disbelieved by the Reviewing Authority. The charge is vague and mala fide and there is no specific period, date or witness and the two witnesses have denied the charge. In connection with this point, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgments in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. G. Ganayutham [ (1997)7 SCC 463 ]: Dev Singh Vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. [ (2003)8 SCC 9 ]: U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. [ (2000)3 SCC 450 ]: Inderjit Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Anr. [ (2010)12 SCC 530 ] and Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. Enquiry Officer (R.K. Rai), Allahabad Bank & Ors.. ( AIR 2003 SC 1377 ) 10. Learned counsel for the respondents, in reply, has mainly referred to statements made in the counter affidavit and has placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgments in the cases of Ram Saran Vs. I.G. of Police, CRPF & Ors. [ (2006)2 SCC 541 ][: 2006(2) PLJR (SC)198] and V. Ramana Vs. A.P.SRTC & Ors. [ (2005)7 SCC 338 ] 11. First and foremost challenge of learned counsel for the petitioner is to the proceeding and the punishment order itself on the ground that the Conducting Officer as well as the disciplinary authority both were biased against the petitioner and the Conducting Officer was acting on the dictates of the disciplinary authority. According to him, this point had been raised by the petitioner during the proceeding itself, vide Annexures-7, 8 and 24 to 27. Annexure-7 is a copy of the order of the Commandant dated 14.8.2007, by which, when the petitioner joined back after overstaying in leave, he was ordered to be relieved for joining his duties on his transfer in the new Battalion. Annexure-8 is a copy of the charge memo dated 16.4.2007 containing the 5 charges. Annexure-7 is a copy of the order of the Commandant dated 14.8.2007, by which, when the petitioner joined back after overstaying in leave, he was ordered to be relieved for joining his duties on his transfer in the new Battalion. Annexure-8 is a copy of the charge memo dated 16.4.2007 containing the 5 charges. Annexure-24 series are copies of his applications to the Commandant, B.M.P.-9 dated 11.8.2007 and 13.8.2007 in which he requested for transfer of the proceeding to any other officer of the unit for conducting it, leveling allegations of bias and ill-motive against the Conducting Officer, Mangru Bhagat and his acting in connivance with higher officials. Annexure-25 is a copy of his application to the Conducting Officer dated 14.7.2008 in which he requested for examination of defence witnesses stating that only thereafter it was possible for him to file his written defence. Annexure-26 Series are copies of two documents. One is copy of an application of the petitioner, dated 19.7.2008, to the Conducting Officer through the Commandant, B.M.P.-12, Saharsa, in response to some notice for submitting his final defence show cause, in which he gave the names of 12 personnel and requested for them to be examined as witnesses before filing his final defence show cause. The other document is the forwarding letter of the Commandant, B.M.P.-12 of the same date, forwarding the show cause of the petitioner. Annexure-27 series are again copies of three documents. They are, (i) an enquiry report of Commandant "B" Company dated 15.6.2007 finding the medical certificate of the petitioner in respect of his suffering from jaundice as correct, (ii) an order of the Commandant, B.M.P.-9 dated 17.10.2007 forfeiting salary of the petitioner of 53 days of his overstay and adjusting the period against his admissible half pay leave, and (iii) his representation dated 12.12.2007 to the D.I.G., B.M.P., (North Zone), Muzaffarpur against the said order dated 17.10.2007 of the Commandant, B.M.P.-9 forfeiting his salary of 53 days. Thus it appears that, out of the number of documents relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner on this issue, only the two applications of the petitioner annexed as Annexure-24 series show that the petitioner had raised the issue of biasness of the Conducting Officer before the disciplinary authority with request for transferring the proceeding to any other officer for conducting it without giving any facts or example of events to substantiate such allegation. 12. Allegations of 'bias', 'prejudice', 'ill-motive', 'undue influence' etc. in conduct of a departmental proceeding can be examined only with reference to the records and from the facts and circumstances appearing in the proceeding ultimately leading to the punishment order. Hence, this Court directed the respondents to produce the entire original records of the disciplinary proceeding no. 7/2007 held against the petitioner-delinquent, which they have produced. Records show that the Commandant, B.M.P.-9 found the show cause replies of the petitioner as unsatisfactory. Therefore, he passed orders on 26.4.2007 initiating the departmental proceeding against him and appointed one Mangru Bhagat, Inspector-cum-Commandant 'A' Company, Camp Nawadah, as Conducting Officer and directed him to submit his report in two copies within 90 days. Records were accordingly sent to the said Conducting Officer, who recorded on 1.5.2007 that he would fix the date in the proceeding after perusing the file. On 20.5.2007 he fixed the date of the proceeding as 31.5.2007 at 11 A.M. in the office of B.M.P.-9 at Jamalpur and directed notices to be issued to the delinquent and the witnesses. It appears that after receipt of the notice, petitioner sent an application dated 28.5.2007 to the Conducting Officer, received by him on 29.5.2007, in which he informed that since he was suffering from jaundice and was confined to bed on medical advice, the date in the proceeding may be fixed only after he recovers and rejoins his duties. This was noticed and recorded by the Conducting Officer in the proceeding on 30.5.2007. The proceeding was thereafter taken up on 13.7.2007 when the Conducting Officer noticed that the delinquent had returned on duty after overstaying his leave. Hence he fixed 17.7.2007 and 18.7.2007 for conduct of the proceeding at "An Company Headquarter Camp, Inter School, Nawadah in the forenoon. He directed notices to be issued to the delinquent and the witnesses accordingly. On 17.7.2007 the delinquent and witnesses Binay Kumar and Chandrama Rai appeared in the proceeding. Proceeding was held and the delinquent asked for 15 days time to further cross-examine witness Binay Kumar. On 18.7.2007 witness Sudama Rai appeared. He was examined and cross-examined by the delinquent. One witness Sudama Singh also appeared on that day in the proceeding who was examined and cross-examined by the delinquent and thereafter he declined to further cross" examine him. It appears that some Company was to shift to Bettiah. On 18.7.2007 witness Sudama Rai appeared. He was examined and cross-examined by the delinquent. One witness Sudama Singh also appeared on that day in the proceeding who was examined and cross-examined by the delinquent and thereafter he declined to further cross" examine him. It appears that some Company was to shift to Bettiah. Hence, the Conducting Officer did not fix the next date in the proceeding and ordered the file to be put up after it shifts to Bettiah. Thereafter, the file was put up before the Conducting Officer and he passed two orders. By one he fixed 16.8.2007 and 17.8.2007 for conduct of the proceeding in the office of B.M.P.-9 at Jamalpur during office hours and directed for information to be sent to the delinquent and the witnesses and by the other order he fixed 10.8.2007 for holding the proceeding in the Circle Jail at “A” Company Headquarters at Bettiah as delinquent and the witness were both in the same company. On 11.8.2007 the statement of witness Moti Prasad Yadav was recorded in presence of the delinquent, who declined to cross-examine him. On 16.8.2007 the delinquent and witness Upendra Mandal, Sanjay Kumar, Devki Mandal appeared in the proceeding at Jamalpur centre, whose statements were recorded, out of whom, petitioner cross-examined only Devki Mandal and declined to cross examine the other two. On the next day, i.e. on 17.8.2007 the delinquent and witnesses Diwakar Yadav and Ravindra Prasad appeared in the proceeding at Jamalpur office. Their statements were recorded in presence of the petitioner. He cross-examined only Diwakar Yadav and declined to further cross-examine him and requested 15 days time to cross-examine witness Ravindra Prasad. On that day witness J.P. Narayan, Dy.S.P. could not appear in the proceeding as he was out on Government duty. It came to the knowledge that the said witness was on Government deputation at Tarapur under Munger district. Hence by order dated 19.8.2007 next date in the proceeding was fixed, as 21.8.2007 at Tarapur. On 21.8.07 both the delinquent and witness J.P. Narayan appeared whose statement was recorded in presence of the petitioner and he requested for 15 days time for his cross-examination. By order dated 2.9.2007, for cross-examination of witness J.P. Narayan and Ravindra Prasad, proceeding was fixed on 11.9.2007 in the forenoon in the Jamalpur office and the delinquent and the witness were directed to be informed accordingly. By order dated 2.9.2007, for cross-examination of witness J.P. Narayan and Ravindra Prasad, proceeding was fixed on 11.9.2007 in the forenoon in the Jamalpur office and the delinquent and the witness were directed to be informed accordingly. However, on that day witnesses could not be present. Hence by order dated 20.9.2007, 26.9.2007 was fixed for the purpose and the delinquent and witnesses were directed to be informed. On 26.9.2007 delinquent and witnesses appeared and they were cross-examined by him. Whereas, in respect of Ravindra Prasad petitioner declined to cross-examine him further, in respect of J.P. Narayan, after cross-examining him for sometime, he sought for more time to further cross-examination, which was refused by the Conducting Officer on the ground that he had already been granted time for the purpose. Petitioner filed a petition on the same day before the Commandant, B.M.P.-9, with a copy to the Conducting Officer, in which he stated that almost all the witnesses had been examined, but main witness Dy.S.P., Mansoor Ahmad, the first enquiry officer and one accounts officer (he did not name) related with the accounts were necessary to be examined as witnesses. On this petition, the Conducting Officer passed orders on 1.10.2007 fixing 10.10.2007 for evidence in Jamalpur office and for examination of Dy.S.P., Mansoor Ahmad on 8.10.2007 in his office at Patna, for which information was ordered to be sent to the delinquent and the witnesses. However, on 8.10.2007, delinquent did not appear in Patna. Hence, the statement of Mansoor Ahmad was recorded in his absence. On 10.10.2007 delinquent and witness Priyaranjan Kumar Sinha appeared. He informed that he was busy in preparation of accounts. Hence he requested for fixing another date in the proceeding. Accordingly, the Conducting Officer, by order dated 15.10.2007, fixed 26.10.2007 as the next date in the proceeding, which he directed to be informed to the delinquent and the witness. On 26.10.2007, the witness again did not appear on account of being on leave. Hence by order dated 29.10.2007, 8.11.2007 was fixed as the next date which was directed to be informed to the delinquent and the witness. On 8.1.2007 again witness Priyaranjan Kumar Sinha did not appear. Hence on 11.11.2007, 21.11.2007 was fixed as the next date, which was ordered to be informed to the delinquent and the' witness. Hence by order dated 29.10.2007, 8.11.2007 was fixed as the next date which was directed to be informed to the delinquent and the witness. On 8.1.2007 again witness Priyaranjan Kumar Sinha did not appear. Hence on 11.11.2007, 21.11.2007 was fixed as the next date, which was ordered to be informed to the delinquent and the' witness. On 14.12.2007 the Conducting Officer recorded that except the accountant Priyaranjan Kumar Sinha, all other witness had been examined. Hence he directed the delinquent to file his final explanation in defence within 15 days, failing which it was to be presumed that he had nothing to say and the file would be put up for final orders. 13. Petitioner's one application dated 31.12.2007, filed in the office of the Commandant, B.M.P.-9 was received by the Conducting Officer on 2.1.2008, in which he requested that since evidence of accountant Priyaranjan Kumar Sinha and of Dy.S.P., Mansoor Ahmad has remained to be examined, in spite of his presence in the proceeding, their evidence may be recorded in his presence and then only he may be asked to file his final explanation in defence. The Conducting Officer recorded on 17.1.2008 that evidence of Dy.S.P., Mansoor Ahmad was recorded on 8.10.2007 in absence of the delinquent, as, in spite of having received the letter, he did not appear, and the ex parte evidence was served on him through office memo no. 839/"A" dated 15.10.2007. However, considering the application sympathetically, the Conducting Officer fixed 28.1.2008 for cross-examination of witness Mansoor Ahmad and 30.1.2008 for cross-examination of Priyaranjan Kumar Sinha in Jamalpur office. On 28.1.2007 Mansoor Ahmad appeared, but requested for another date for his cross-examination. On 30.1.2008 Priyaranjan Kumar Sinha appeared and he was cross-examined by the delinquent. On 22.2.2008, the Conducting Officer fixed 7.3.2008 as the date for cross-examination of Mansoor Ahmad in his office at Patna and directed delinquent and witness to be informed. On 7.3.2008 witness Mansoor Ahmad and delinquent appeared. He cross-examined the witness, but as he leveled allegations of extraneous considerations on the witness, cross-examination could not be completed. In view of the said allegation, the Conducting Officer referred the matter on 14.3.2008 to the Commandant, B.M.P.-9 for guidelines. Some guidelines was received by the Conducting Officer on 2.4.2008, in the light of which on 29.4.2008 he fixed 13.5.2008 for further cross-examination of said witness in his Patna office. In view of the said allegation, the Conducting Officer referred the matter on 14.3.2008 to the Commandant, B.M.P.-9 for guidelines. Some guidelines was received by the Conducting Officer on 2.4.2008, in the light of which on 29.4.2008 he fixed 13.5.2008 for further cross-examination of said witness in his Patna office. On 13.5.2008 delinquent appeared but the witness could not be present due to being on outstation duty for 15 days. Thereafter, by order dated 29.6.2008, next date for his cross-examination was fixed as 10.7.2008 at his Patna office. On that day .the witness appeared and the delinquent completed his cross-examination. On 13.7.2008, the Conducting Officer recorded that evidence of all the witness of the prosecution side was over. Hence he ordered the delinquent to submit his final explanation in defence within 15 days failing which he would presume that he had nothing to say in his defence and he would send the file with report for final orders. On 14.7.2008, petitioner gave an application to the Conducting Officer that only after recording the evidence of defence witnesses it was possible for him to submit 'his final written submissions. Hence he requested that defence witnesses (without naming anyone) be examined. In view of his application, on 15.7.2008 the Conducting Officer fixed 20.7.2008 for production of witnesses by the delinquent at company headquarters at Katihar, failing which he was to submit his final defence as directed by order dated 13.7.2008. It appears that petitioner did not produce his witnesses on the date fixed nor did he ask for further time for that. Hence, the Conducting Officer submitted his report on 15.8.2008, with the records to the Disciplinary Authority for final orders. Accordingly, after discussing the enquiry report, the Commandant, B.M.P.-9, issued a second show cause notice to the delinquent, alongwith a copy of the report, through his memo no. 2794 dated 2.9.2008. Since petitioner did not submit his second show cause reply, a reminder was sent to him by memo no. 3132 dated 23.9.2008. Finally, petitioner filed his second show cause reply on 1.10.2008, which was forwarded by the Commandant, B.M.P.-12 to the Commandant B.M.P.-9 through his memo no. 701 dated 1.10.2008. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, considered the matter and passed his final order on 27.10.2008, in which he held the petitioner guilty of all the charges and ordered for his removal from service. Finally, petitioner filed his second show cause reply on 1.10.2008, which was forwarded by the Commandant, B.M.P.-12 to the Commandant B.M.P.-9 through his memo no. 701 dated 1.10.2008. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, considered the matter and passed his final order on 27.10.2008, in which he held the petitioner guilty of all the charges and ordered for his removal from service. The order was directed to be sent to the petitioner through Commandant, B.M.P.-12 as petitioner was posted there at the time. The Commandant, B.M.P.-12, accordingly, issued orders, vide his memo no. 805 dated 8.11.2008 for removal of the name of the petitioner from the roll of the Battalion. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the D.I.G. (North Zone), Muzaffarpur, by his order as contained in memo no.362 dated 11.5.2009 and his appeal memorial was rejected by the D.G.P., Bihar as contained in memo no. 1664 dated 30.4.2010. 14. This Court examined the entire original records of the proceeding against the petitioner just to ascertain as to whether there were materials on record to substantiate the allegations of bias and ill-motive levelled by the petitioner against the Conducting Officer and the Disciplinary Authority or not. After examining the records and perusing the order-sheet and the documents available, this Court is of the view that there is no sufficient material on record to substantiate the said allegations of the petitioner. This Court found that the witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner and as and when he requested for time for cross-examination of a particular witness the same was granted to him. This Court also found that even if the petitioner had not appeared on the date fixed and in his absence the witness's statement was recorded ex parte, on his request he was allowed to cross-examine the witness later on. There was only one case in which the petitioner was not allowed further time to cross-examine the witness (J.P. Narayan) as the Enquiry Officer found that earlier the petitioner had already been granted time to cross-examine him. In respect of witness J.P. Narayan on 21.8.2007 petitioner had taken 15 days time for his cross-examination. Hence, on his request the proceeding was adjourned and on 26.9.2007 he appeared, who was cross-examined by the petitioner. In respect of witness J.P. Narayan on 21.8.2007 petitioner had taken 15 days time for his cross-examination. Hence, on his request the proceeding was adjourned and on 26.9.2007 he appeared, who was cross-examined by the petitioner. After cross-examining him for sometime, petitioner sought further time for his cross-examination which was refused by the Conducting Officer on the ground that he had already sought and was granted time once to cross-examine him which he had done on that day. This act of the Conducting Officer was in exercise of his discretion and cannot be termed as actuated by bias or ill-motive. 15. Though the case of bias, prejudice and ill-motive, advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, could not be established from the records of the proceeding, but while going through the records this Court found a case of gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice committed in the proceeding by the Conducting Officer. As noticed above, from the order-sheet of the proceeding, it appeared that on 13.7.08 the Conducting Officer recorded that all the prosecution witnesses had been examined and the prosecution evidence was complete and he directed the petitioner to submit his final statement within 15 days. On 15.7.08 the Conducting Officer recorded that there was a request by the petitioner for examination of defence witnesses. Hence, he fixed 20.7.08 for production of defence witnesses by the petitioner at Company Headquarter at Katihar. This order does not show as to on which petition of the petitioner Conducting Officer had passed this order and fixed the date. On record of the proceeding there are two applications of the petitioner in this connection. One is at page 169 of the records dated 14.7.08 addressed directly to the Conducting Officer in which the petitioner simply requested for examination of defence witnesses without any name. A copy of this application is Annexure-25 with the supplementary affidavit as well as rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. As in this application petitioner had not disclosed the name of any witness he desired to examine in the proceeding, it was obligatory on the part of the Conducting Officer to fix up a date, which he did, for the petitioner to produce any witness he desired. In the order-sheet of the proceeding there is no order of 20.7.08 to show as to what happened on that day. In the order-sheet of the proceeding there is no order of 20.7.08 to show as to what happened on that day. It can be assumed that on that day petitioner did not produce any witness nor did he request for further time. Hence proceeding was closed and the report was finally submitted on 15.8.08. But there is one more application of the petitioner on record, the original of which is at page 167 of the records of the proceeding (copy of the application is Annexure-26 with the said supplementary affidavit). This application is addressed to the Conducting Officer but appears to have been submitted in the office of the Commandant, B.M.P.-12, Saharsa where the petitioner was posted at that time. This application is in response to the memo dated 13.7.08 and 15.7.08 of the Conducting Officer received by the petitioner. In this application he mentions the names of 12 witnesses about whom he says that their evidence was required in the proceeding from the defence side and only after their evidence he should be asked to submit his final defence statement. The forwarding letter, in original, of this application, issued by Commandant, B.M.P.-12, Saharsa to the Commandant, B.M.P.-9 at Jamalpur is at page 166 of the records of the proceeding, copy whereof is also annexed with the said Annexure-26. The original shows that it was endorsed to the Conducting Officer. From some endorsement on this forwarding letter it appears that it was also seen by the Conducting Officer at least on 29.7.08. However, the order-sheet recorded by the Conducting Officer is completely silent about this request of the petitioner. As mentioned above, the order-sheet also does not record any order in respect of as to what happened on 20.7.08, the date fixed for production of defence witnesses. This clearly shows that there was serious lapses committed by the Conducting Officer in giving due opportunity to the petitioner to produce his defence witnesses and/or in summoning defence witnesses named in his said application dated 19.7.08 and making them available for their examination in the proceeding. A disciplinary proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding, is well established. If a delinquent proposes the names of the witnesses he intends to be examined in the proceeding, the Conducting Officer or the Management has no discretion to refuse such request on the basis of their subjective opinion that they are not relevant. A disciplinary proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding, is well established. If a delinquent proposes the names of the witnesses he intends to be examined in the proceeding, the Conducting Officer or the Management has no discretion to refuse such request on the basis of their subjective opinion that they are not relevant. Law in this regard has been made clear by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon [ (2009)2 SCC 541 ] in Paragraph-15 which may be usefully reproduced hereinbelow: "The principles of natural justice demand that an application for summoning a witness by the delinquent officer should be considered by the enquiry officer. It was obligatory on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an order on the said application. He could not refuse to consider the same. It is not for the Railway Administration to contend that it is for them to consider as to whether any witness should be examined by it or not. It was for the enquiry officer to take a decision thereupon. A disciplinary proceeding must be fairly conducted. An enquiry officer is a quasi-judicial authority. He, therefore, must perform his functions fairly and reasonably which is even otherwise the requirement of principles of natural justice." 16. It is also obvious that, law requires that if witnesses requested by a delinquent to be examined in a proceeding are working employees in the organization, it is obligatory on the part of the Conducting Officer to summon them and present them in the proceeding for their examination by the delinquent and the burden cannot be put on the delinquent to arrange for their appearance in the proceeding. However, if a delinquent desires to examine a private person as a witness in the proceeding, in that case only, it may be his responsibility' to produce him. From the application of the petitioner dated 19.7.08 it appears that all the 12 persons named by him for being examined as a witness in the proceeding were still in service with B.M.P.-9. Hence, after receipt of this application it was obligatory on the part of the Conducting Officer to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. This Conducting Officer has completely failed to do and it appears from the records that he completely shut his eyes to this request of the petitioner and proceeded with and submitted his report. Hence, after receipt of this application it was obligatory on the part of the Conducting Officer to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. This Conducting Officer has completely failed to do and it appears from the records that he completely shut his eyes to this request of the petitioner and proceeded with and submitted his report. This amounts to gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice committed by the Conducting Officer, and therefore, the proceeding from this stage and all consequential actions and orders of the respondents stands vitiated. 17. As a result, this writ application is allowed. The enquiry report dated 15.8.08 (Annexure-13 Series), the order of the disciplinary authority dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure-14), the order of the Appellate Authority dated 11.5.2009 (Annexure-15), the order of the reviewing authority dated 30.4.2010. (Annexure-16) are hereby quashed. Since, the proceeding has been held vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice after examination of the prosecution witnesses, this Court grants liberty to the respondents to revive the proceeding from the stage it had reached on 13.7.2008 and take further steps in accordance with law after taking into account the said application of the petitioner dated 19.7.08 (original available at page 176 of the records of the proceeding), copy whereof is Annexure-26 with the said supplementary affidavit, and conclude the same with follow-up steps if the respondents decide to proceeding afresh from that stage. In that eventuality it will be appropriate for the respondent no. 2 to appoint another Conducting Officer to proceed in the matter as the petitioner has levelled allegations of bias and ill-motive against the original Conducting Officer. It will be also appropriate that the report of the proceeding is considered by any other authority in the capacity of disciplinary authority as the petitioner has levelled allegations of bias against the respondent no. 5 also. The Director General of Police, respondent no. 2 shall also be at liberty to determine the status of the petitioner in the Battalian in view of the revived proceeding. In case he decides not to proceed afresh against the petitioner in the matter, petitioner shall stand restored in service with all consequential benefits. 18. The respondent no. 5 also. The Director General of Police, respondent no. 2 shall also be at liberty to determine the status of the petitioner in the Battalian in view of the revived proceeding. In case he decides not to proceed afresh against the petitioner in the matter, petitioner shall stand restored in service with all consequential benefits. 18. The respondent no. 2 shall pass orders, either way, positively within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if he passes order for proceeding in the matter afresh from the stage it was on 13.7.08, the proceeding shall be concluded positively within 3 months from the date of passing of the order by the respondent no. 2 and strictly in accordance with law. 19. This Court has considered the other submissions also of learned counsel for the petitioner and has examined the judicial pronouncements relied upon by him in support of specific issues. But since orders have been quashed on account of gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice at the stage of enquiry, this Court does not consider it necessary to express its opinion on other issues raised by the petitioner. It will be appropriate for him to raise the same at the first instance before the Disciplinary Authority and, if necessary, before the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority including the ground nos. (ii), (iii), (xi), (xii) and (xv). It need not be pointed out that since the exercise of powers by the authorities will be quasi judicial in nature, it will be obligatory on their part to consider the submissions and issues raised by the petitioner and answer the same. 20. Let the original records of the disciplinary proceeding (pages 1 to 230) be returned.