Md. Umran v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8770 of 2024 ====================================================== Md. Umran Son of Md. Majid Hussain Resident of Ward No.-9, Village-Sirsi, P.S.- Khudabandpur, District-Begusarai at present posted at the District Police, District-Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

4.

the Deputy Inspector of Police, Munger Range, Munger. 5.

The Superintendent of Police, Munger.

6.

The Additional Superintendent of Police (HQ), Munger District Munger. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Bipin Chandra, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Standing Counsel 9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 05-02-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:- I. R4 For issuance of a writ of mandamus to the concerned respondents as to transfer the Departmental proceedings No. 32/21 from the Munger Range to the other range by removing the present disciplinary authority i.e. the Enquiry officer and the presenting officer from the present proceedings on the grounds that the Enquiry Officer has been taking the proceedings i.e. examinations of the witnesses in most arbitrary and illegal manners without

Patna High Court CWJC No.8770 of 2024(2) dt.05-02-2026 2/3 recording the vital objections raised by the petitioner. The conduct of the Enquiry Officer is in complete derogation of the procedure established by law (Police Manual) and in violation of the principles of natural Justice. II. Further be pleased to direct the concerned respondent No. 3 dispose of the to application dated 23.02.2024/28.2.2024 of petitioner forthwith so that the petitioner may approach the appropriate forum of law as the department proceedings was initiated on 22.10.2021 meaning thereby it took 3 years (approx.) making the petitioner terrorised harassed and victim of mental agony.

3. Counsel for the State submits that the pleading of the petitioner is in complete contradiction with its representation which is Annexure-(P/2) whose paragraph No.VI (page 26) states as follows:- "(vi) जाँचपदाधधकारीदाराIndian Evidence Act1872 section-101 and 102 काउललंघनधकयागयाहैकयोधक Burden of proof काभारआरोपलगानेवालेकेउपरहोताहैन धकअपचारीपर।अधभयोजनपकमेरेधवरदधकसीभीizdkj का साकयसंचालनकेदौराननहींदेपायेहै।यहदूरभागयहैधक संचालनपदाधधकारीआरोपलगानेवालेकापकलेधलयेहैऔर मुझेलगायेगयेआरोपकेधलयेदोषीकरधदये। lk{;ksa कीअनदेखीकरतेहुयेदूरभावनासेizsfjr होकरJh संजयकुमार, भा०पु०से०, पुधलसउप-महाधनरीकक महोदय, मुंगेर{ks=, मुंगेरदाराअपनेकायारलयजापांक-1412/गो0, धद0-13.12.2022 तद्‌नुसार मुंगेर धजलादेश सं0-2117/2022, तद्नुसारजापांक-4788/र0 का0, धद0-18.12.2022 कोसेवासे बखारसतधकयागयाथा। मेरेअपीलअभयावेदनपरभवदीयकेकायारलयका आदेशi= सं0-02/2023/85/ अपीलकोषांग, धद0-15.5.2023 के दारामुंगेरधजलाधवभागीयकायरवाहीसं0-32/21 मेपुधलसउपमहाधनरीककमहोदय, मुंगेर{ks=, मुंगेरदाराजापांक-1412/गो0,

Patna High Court CWJC No.8770 of 2024(2) dt.05-02-2026 3/3 धद0-13.12.23 केमाधयमसेपाधरतआदेश, जाँचपदाधधकारीके मंतवय, आरोप- izk:i कोधनरसतकरधदयागयाएवंधनलंधबतरखने केसंबंधमेधनरयलेनेहेतुपुधलसउपमहाधनरीककमहोदय, मुंगेर {ks=, मुंगेरकोधदयागया। उकतआदेशके आलोकमे मुंगेर{ks=kns"k सं0152/2023 तद्नुसारमुंगेरधजलादेशसं0-940/2023 तद्‌नुसार जापांक-2500/र0 का0, धद0-14.06.2023 मुझेसेवामेलेनेका आदेशधदयागया। उकतआदेशकेआलोकमेमधेपुराधजलादेशसं0664/23, तद्‌नुसार जापांक-1027/20 का0, धद0-23.06.23 के माधयमसेसेवामेधलयागयाएवंयोगदानकीधतधथ-22.6.23 से जीवनयापनभतामेरेअनुरोधआवेदनपरधदयागया। "

4. It transpires to this Court that in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was terminated from his service and in the appeal, decision was taken to restore his service. If it is so in the representation, then there is no question of transfer the departmental proceeding as the role of the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer has already been ended. As such, the present writ petition is frivolous one, hence, dismissed.

5. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the present writ application stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Prakashmani/- U