JUDGMENT : 1. The office notes as regards the deposit of cost is unwarranted. That was a conditional order. The State has already filed the additional counter affidavit. 2. The present writ application was initially filed seeking quashing of the order dated 16.01.2019 contained in letter no. 24 issued by the District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah (respondent no. 2) directing to conduct a departmental proceeding through the Additional Collector (Departmental Enquiry) West Champaran, Bettiah against the petitioner. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider revoking his suspension and appoint him on his regular post. 3. During pendency of the writ application since final order has been passed by the disciplinary authority and a decision has been taken to terminate the petitioner from service, the petitioner has, after seeking leave of this Court, challenged the order of termination by filing an Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2020. The petitioner has, thus, challenged the final order as contained in Memo No. 804 dated 16.07.2020 issued under signature of the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah. Brief Facts of the Case 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court the following facts for the purpose of adjudication. 5. The petitioner was at the relevant time working as chaukidar at beet No. 3/12 in P.S. Majhauliya, District West Champaran. One Rahul Shrivastava who was the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India Paras Pakari Branch lodged a First Information Report giving rise to Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 15 of 2016 against the unknown accused persons under Section 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that unknown persons had entered in the Bank and committed dacoity. Police investigated the case and submitted a chargesheet on 25.03.2016 against four named accused persons including this petitioner. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Bettiah (respondent no. 5) requested the respondent no. 2 to dismiss the petitioner from service because of the filing of the chargesheet against him. A departmental proceeding was, thus, initiated against the petitioner and a charge contained in prapatra ^d* was issued to the petitioner. Annexure 3' to the writ application is prapatra ^d* . 7. It appears that vide letter no. 699 dated 08.07.2016 issued by respondent no. 2, the Additional Collector (Departmental Enquiry) West Champaran was authorised for conducting the departmental enquiry. A departmental proceeding was, thus, initiated against the petitioner and a charge contained in prapatra ^d* was issued to the petitioner. Annexure 3' to the writ application is prapatra ^d* . 7. It appears that vide letter no. 699 dated 08.07.2016 issued by respondent no. 2, the Additional Collector (Departmental Enquiry) West Champaran was authorised for conducting the departmental enquiry. After his transfer from the District one Shri Nurul Haque Sivani, Senior Deputy Collector, West Champaran was authorised to act as an Enquiry Officer. 8. Shri Nurul Haque Sivani submitted his enquiry report vide letter no. 198 dated 19.02.2018 stating therein that because the matter is subjudiced before the Hon'ble Court, hence, till the final decision of the Court it would not be appropriate to take any action. His observation was not liked by the then Collector who sent back the file to Shri Sivani, the Senior Deputy Collector for remarks and once again Shri Sivani wrote the same thing vide his letter No. 61 dated 07.07.2018. Not being happy with the recommendation of Shri Sivani to await the order of the Court, the District Magistrate, West Champaran vide order dated 04.01.2019 contained in Memo No. 24 dated 16.01.2019 authorised the Additional Collector (Departmental Enquiry) to conduct the departmental proceeding and authorised CO. Majhauliya to act as Presenting Officer in the matter. The Additional Collector, Departmental Enquiry submitted his final report against the writ petitioner vide letter no. 52 dated 19.06.2020. 9. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and submit his reply to the enquiry report which was accordingly done but the competent authority vide order dated 16.07.2020 (attached with the interlocutory application) dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from the date of issuance of the order. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on bare perusal of prapatra ^d* it would appear that the charge framed against the petitioner may be taken to have been proved only when the guilt of the petitioner is proved before the learned trial court. It is submitted that by judicial pronouncement, it has been held times and again that chargesheet in itself is not a proof of guilt. The petitioner has been though charge sheeted but that alone would not be a proof of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It is submitted that by judicial pronouncement, it has been held times and again that chargesheet in itself is not a proof of guilt. The petitioner has been though charge sheeted but that alone would not be a proof of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. No other charge of any suspicious conduct or lack of shouldering responsibility could be brought against this petitioner. 11. It is submitted that there was no reason for the Disciplinary Authority to change the Enquiry Officer and it is evident from his conduct that the Enquiry Officer was changed because the Senior Deputy Collector, Shri Sivani who was acting as the Enquiry Officer was taking a correct approach to await the final outcome of the criminal case pending against the petitioner. 12. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer was changed only to get a favourable report to complete the records before passing the order of dismissal against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority was, thus, acting with bias and action taken in haste against the petitioner is nothing but a result of an action which suffers from malice in law, if not in fact. 13. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the factual aspect that the charge was served on the petitioner in Prapatra ^d* only on the basis of the fact that a chargesheet was filed against the petitioner in the criminal case. Submission of the chargesheet in the criminal case has been taken as an instance of lack of discipline and the same has been treated as a case of misconduct. Learned counsel has, however, defended the impugned order as according to him before passing the impugned order principle of natural justice has been fully complied with. Consideration 14. Submission of the chargesheet in the criminal case has been taken as an instance of lack of discipline and the same has been treated as a case of misconduct. Learned counsel has, however, defended the impugned order as according to him before passing the impugned order principle of natural justice has been fully complied with. Consideration 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that the prapatra ^d* was issued against the petitioner with the following charges Ái=&^^d^^ 1-deZpkjh dk uke%& b'kgkd fe;ka] 2-inuke%& pkSfdnkj] 3-foHkkx dk uke%& x`g¼vkj{kh½ foHkkx fcgkj 4-dk;kZy; dk uke%& vapy dk;kZy; e>kSfy;k 5-osrueku%& 5200&20200 6-xzsM osru%&1800 Ø0 vkjksi vkjksi dk fooj.k LakyXu lk{; 01 e>kSfy;k Fkkuk dk.M la[;k& 15@2016 fnukad& 17-01-16 /kkjk 457@380 Hkk0 n0 fo0 esa vkjksih gksuk e>kSfy;k Fkkuk dk.M la[;k&15@2016 dk vuqla/kku esa /kkjk&457@380@411 Hkk0 n0 fo0 ds rgr dk.M lR; ik;s tkus ds dkj.k fxjQ~rkj dj U;kf;d fgjklr esa Hkstk tkuk@dk.M esa lafyIr ik;k tkuk@lafnX/k vkpj.k ,oa drZO;ghurk dk ?kksrd gSA vkidk ;g vkpj.k fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ds vkpj.k fu;ekoyh ds Áfrdwy gSA iqfyl v/kh{kd ds i=kad& 2302@Hkh0 vks0 fnukad& 10-06-16 ÁHkkjh inkf/kdkjh ftyk lkekU;] 'kk[kk if'pe pEikj.k] csfr;k vij lekgRrkZ] ¼foHkkxh;] tkWp½ if'pe pEikj.k] csfr;kA ftyk inkf/kdkjh] if'pe pEikj.k] csfr;k 15. The petitioner replied to prapatra ^d* and after requesting the authorities to provide him some relevant papers, he submitted his written reply which is annexed to the letter no. 23 dated 18.03.2017 written by the Enquiry Officer-cum-Senior Deputy Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. In his written reply, the petitioner submitted that he belongs to an extremely backward class, he is a muslim but has been made accused in this case only because the co-accused disclosed the name of one 'Khan' who was also involved in the alleged occurrence. The petitioner claimed that he has been taken as 'Khan' though his name is only 'Ishak Miya'. The petitioner also submitted that because criminal proceeding is still pending and the final outcome of the criminal proceeding is yet to come, the departmental proceeding be kept in abeyance. 16. The petitioner claimed that he has been taken as 'Khan' though his name is only 'Ishak Miya'. The petitioner also submitted that because criminal proceeding is still pending and the final outcome of the criminal proceeding is yet to come, the departmental proceeding be kept in abeyance. 16. This Court has already taken note of the fact as to how Shri Sivani, the Senior Deputy Collector placed his notes twice before the District Magistrate, West Champaran saying that it would not be appropriate to take any action in the departmental proceeding at this stage as the matter is subjudiced before the Hon'ble Court but after his second note the Enquiry Officer was changed. 17. The copy of the enquiry report submitted to the Incharge Officer of the District General Section West Champaran is available on the record with the counter affidavit as Annexure 'C. The Enquiry Officer has taken note of the charge framed against the petitioner. He has also taken note of the stand of the petitioner who has repeatedly stated that the petitioner cannot be adjudged guilty in the said case when the trial is still pending. The Enquiry Officer has recorded his opinion by saying that because police has submitted a chargesheet against him, therefore, the conduct of the petitioner is suspicious and it indicates lack of sincerity on his part. 18. The Disciplinary Authority though gave an opportunity to the petitioner to submit this show cause and the petitioner submitted his show cause as contained in Annexure 12' attached to the interlocutory application, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass the impugned order. The Disciplinary Authority simply recorded the stand of the petitioner and the stand of the Presenting Officer as also the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer and thereafter proceeded to pass the impugned order. The Disciplinary Authority simply recorded the stand of the petitioner and the stand of the Presenting Officer as also the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer and thereafter proceeded to pass the impugned order. The relevant part of the impugned order is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference: ^^dfFkr vkjksi dk vk/kkj e>kSfy;k Fkkuk dk.M la[;k 15@16 dk vkjksih gksuk crk;k x;k gS rFkk lk{; ds :i esa iqfyl vf/k{kd ds i=kad 2302@16 dks vk/kkj ekudj Ek>kSfy;k Fkkuk dk.M la[;k 15@16 /kkjk 457@380 Hkk0n0fo0 esa lafyIrrk dks lgh crkrs gq, vkjksi i= U;k;ky; esa lefÁr fd;k x;k gSA tc rd U;k;ky; }kjk vkjksih ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k tkrk] rc rd vkjksi Áekf.kr djuk U;k;laxr ugha gSA lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ,oa miLFkkiu inkf/kdkjh }kjk iwoZ esa fn;s x, Li"Vhdj.k ij fcuk fopkj fd;s gh vkj{kh v/kh{kd] csfr;k ds vkjksi dks vk/kkj ekudj nks"k Áekf.kr djuk fu;ekuqdqy ugha gSA viuh lsokdky esa iw.kZ fu"Bk ,oa bZekunkjh ls vius dk;Z ,oa nkf;Ro dk fuoZgu djrs vk jgk gWwA fdlh Hkh Ádkj dk dksbZ vU; f'kdk;r ntZ ugha gqvk gSA bl Ádkj ls fuyafcr pkSdhnkj ds }kjk dkj.k i`PNk esa fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k ds fopkj.k ds i'pkr fuyacu ls eqDr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA leh{kk %& Jh bZ'kgkd fe;ka] fuyafcr pkSfdnkj chV ua0&03@12 Fkkuk& e>kSfy;k ds fo:} xfBr vkjksi ds e/nsutj foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk lapkyu fd;k x;k gSA fnukad& 09-07-2019] 30-07-2019] 17-08-2019] 27-12-2019] 17-08-2020 ,oa 25-01-2020 dks vkjksih b'kgkd fe;ka ,oa mi&LFkkiu inkf/kdkjh dks uksfVl fuxZr dj fof/kor lquokbZ dh x;hA vkjksih dehZ dks Hkh lquk x;k rFkk mi&LFkkiu inkf/kdkjh }kjk lefÁr Áfrosnu dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vkjksih dehZ b'kgkd fe;ka ds }kjk vius cpko esa rF;ksa dks vk/kkj cuk;k gS %& 1- fØ-eh ua0 19019@16 ds rgr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk tekur ij eqDr fd;k tkukA mDr ds lanHkZ esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 13-03-2016 dk voyksdu fd;k x;k] ftlds ek/;e ls bUgsa 10000@&:0 ds epyds ij tekur nsus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gSA bl vkns'k esa vkjksih dehZ ds fo:} xfBr vkjksi vFkok ntZ dkaM ds xq.k&nks"k ij dksbZ fVIi.kh vafdr ugha fd;k x;k gSA blfy, budk ;g vk/kkj rF;ghu gSA 2- bl dkaM esa fxjQ~rkj vfHk;qDr ds }kjk fdlh [kku dks lafyIr gksuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS] tks cSad dk dehZ gSA vkjksih dehZ ds }kjk dkj.k i`PNk esa fn, x, rdZ dh ^^fdlh [kku uke ds O;fDr dh lafyIrrk Lohdkjh x;h gS^^ ds lanHkZ esa buds }kjk nSfud dkaM dh Nk;kÁfr ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gSA dkaM nSfud dh Nk;kÁfr ¼04791299 vafdr½ ds rhljh dafMdk esa lat; ;kno ds LohdkjksfDr esa ^^Áfrfu;qDr pkSfdnkj b'kgkd fe;ka is0 Qty djhe fe;ka lkfdu&NkSjfgk Fkkuk&e>kSfy;k dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k gS^^ vafdr gSA bl dafMdk ls vkjksih dehZ dk dFku fcYdqy foijhr gS ,oa buds dFku ds Áfrdwy gSA bl ekeys ds iq0v0fu0 lq/khj dqekj ds DRN1257/17 fnukad 04-08-2017 ls lefÁr Áfrosnu Hkh egRoiw.kZ gS] ftlesa vafdr fd;k x;k gS bl dk.M esa fxjQ~rkj vfHk;qDrksa ds LohdkjksfDr c;ku ds vk/kkj ij pkSdhnkj b'kgkd fe;ka dks U;kf;d fgjklr esa Hkstk x;k gSA rRi'pkr~ vkjksi i= lefÁr fd;k x;k Gsa ,sls ekeysa ds lanHkZ esa CWJC No-4857@110 Brij Kumar Singh V/S the State of Bihar eas ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 09-11-2010 esa of.kZr gS fd "The petitioner belonged to a disciplined uniformed force. The standard of conduct that was expected from him is far more rigorous and exacting than that applicable to a civilian service. If on a preponderance of probabilities a member of a uniformed service is found to have acted contrary to the solemn oath that he took when he donned the uniformed to uphold and protect the law he must suffer the consequence". ;g Hkh ,d rF; gS fd bUgsa dk.M esa lafyIr ikdj gh buds fo:} vkjksi i= lefÁr fd;k x;k gS rFkk iqfyl v/kh{kd ds }kjk c[kkZLrxh dh vuq'kalk dh x;h gSA ftlls Li"V gS fd Jh bZ'kgkd fe;ka] fuyafcr pkSfdnkj chV ua0 03@12 Fkkuk&e>kSfy;k }kjk ljdkjh dehZ ds vkpj.k ,oa drZO; ds foijhr tkdj dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] tks ?kksj drZO;ghurk ,oa lafnX/k vkpj.k dk ifjpk;d gSA fu"d’kZ %& mijksDr foospu ls Jh bZ'kgkd fe;ka] pkSdhnkn chV la0 3@12 Fkkuk&e>kSfy;k ds fo:} Ái= ^^d^^ esa yxk;s x;s vkjksi Áekf.kr gksrs gSa f}rh; dkj.k i`PNk esa Hkh vkjksih dehZ ds }kjk dksbZ uohu rF; ÁLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA rnk~yksd esa buds f}rh; dkj.k i`PNk dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA vr % lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds fu"d’kZ ftlesa ¼vkjksi Áekf.kr gksrk gS ds vkyksd esa½ fcgkj ljdkjh vkpkj fu;ekoyh 1976 dh /kkjk 3 ,oa 4 ,oa /kkjk 457@380@411 Hkk0n0fo0 ds rgr vkjksih gksus ds dkj.k eS dqanu dqekj] Hkk0Á0ls0] ftyk inkf/kdkjh] if'pe pEikj.k] csfr;k fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh & 2005 ¼;Fkk la'kks/ku½ 2007 ds Hkkx&5 ds fu;e 14 esa fufgr 'kfDr;ksa ds vkyksd esa Jh b'kgkd fe;ka] fuyafcr pkSdhnkj] Fkkuk vapy& e>kSfy;k] chV ua0 3@12 dks vkns'k fuxZr dh frfFk ls lsok ls c[kZkLrxh (Dismiss) dk naM vf/kjksfir djrk gw¡A** 19. On going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority has not at all considered the submissions of the petitioner that at this stage there is only a chargesheet against him which is not a conclusive proof of the guilt. Before the Disciplinary Authority there was no other material in form of evidence to take a view that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. The one and only material which has been noticed by the Disciplinary Authority is the statement of the co-accused recorded in the case diary. The Disciplinary Authority seems to have swayed away with the statement of the co-accused who had taken the name of one person, namely, 'Khan' who was also allegedly involved in the alleged occurrence. The one and only material which has been noticed by the Disciplinary Authority is the statement of the co-accused recorded in the case diary. The Disciplinary Authority seems to have swayed away with the statement of the co-accused who had taken the name of one person, namely, 'Khan' who was also allegedly involved in the alleged occurrence. The disciplinary authority was perhaps not aware of the National Police Commission's report which says that in India 43.2% of the jail expenditure are being incurred on those who in ultimate analysis ought not to have been arrested. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1349 . A member of the uniformed force cannot be thrown out of service by holding him guilty only because he was arrested in a case in which the trial is still pending. 20. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Disciplinary Authority has acted in haste in concluding the matter on the basis of the statement of the co-accused coming in the case diary. He has taken to have the charge proved against the petitioner only because in the criminal case a chargesheet has been filed against him. The view taken by the Disciplinary Authority is totally perversed and cannot stand the test of law. 21. The impugned order (Annexure 13' to the Interlocutory Application) as contained in Memo No. 804 dated 16.07.2020 issued under signature of the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah. being wholly illegal, arbitrary and bad in law the same is hereby set-aside. 22. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to keep the disciplinary proceeding in abeyance till conclusion of trial. Once the trial stands concluded, the Disciplinary Authority may proceed with the departmental proceeding, if so advised. Let the petitioner be reinstated in service within a period of 30 days from today. 23. A decision as to the consequential benefits for the period the petitioner has remained under termination shall be taken after conclusion of the departmental proceeding. In case, the petitioner is acquitted in the trial and the department does not proceed afresh with the departmental proceeding, the District Magistrate, West Champaran shall be obliged to take a decision with regard to payments of the said period. 24. In case, the petitioner is acquitted in the trial and the department does not proceed afresh with the departmental proceeding, the District Magistrate, West Champaran shall be obliged to take a decision with regard to payments of the said period. 24. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.