Vijay Kumar Singh @ Vijay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6182 of 2021 ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Singh @ Vijay Singh Son of Late Nageshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Ward No. 09, Belo, Police Station- Murliganj, District - Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea. 3.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 4.

The Superintendent of Police, Purnea.

5.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Purnea. 6.

The Excise Superintendent, Madhepura.

7.

The Inspector of Police (Traffic), Purnea Police Station, Purnea. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjan Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Lalit Kishore (Ag) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 07-02-2022 The matter is heard via video conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:

"That, this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Purnea Chhetradesh Sankhya 50/20 dated 11.04.2020 under Memo No. 431 issued under the signature of Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea which was communicated to the petitioner by Superintendent of Police, Purea vide Memo No. 1340 dateds 18.04.2020 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service and further for a direction in the nature of mandamus after setting aside the

Patna High Court CWJC No.6182 of 2021 dt.07-02-2022 2/2 impugned order petitioner be granted all other consequential benefits for which petitioner is entitled for."

3. Undisputedly, petitioner has a remedy of appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order dated 11.04.2020 is passed by the Appellate Authority. Apex Court held that if Appellate Authority imposes any of the penalty, in that event, employee is required to prefer appeal before the next higher authority. In the present case higher authority to the I.G.P. is D.G.P., therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the D.G.P. (Director General of Police) within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If such appeal is preferred, the D.G.P. is hereby directed to examine the petitioner's appeal and decide the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such appeal in accordance with law.

4. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) GAURAV S./- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date