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 2 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) जाँच पदाधधकारी दारा Indian Evidence Act- 1872 section-101 and 102 का उललंघन धकया गया है कयोधक Burden of proof का भार आरोप लगाने वाले के उपर होता है न धक अपचारी पर। अधभयोजन पक मेरे धवरद धकसी भी izdkj का साकय संचालन के दौरान नहीं दे पाये है। यह दूरभागय है धक संचालन पदाधधकारी आरोप लगाने वाले का पक ले धलये है और मुझे लगाये गये आरोप के धलये दोषी कर धदये। lk{;ksa की अनदेखी करते हुये दूरभावना से izsfjr होकर Jh संजय कु मार, भा०पु० से०, पुधलस उप-महाधनरीकक महोदय, मुंगेर {ks=, मुंगेर दारा अपने कायारलय जापांक-1412/गो0, धद0-13.12.2022 तद्‌नुसार मुंगेर धजलादेश सं0-2117/2022, तद्नुसार जापांक-4788/र 0 का0, धद0-18.12.2022 को सेवा से बखारसत धकया गया था। मेरे अपील अभयावेदन पर भवदीय के कायारलय का आदेश i= सं0-02/2023/85/ अपील कोषांग, धद0-15.5.2023 के दारा मुंगेर धजला धवभागीय कायरवाही सं0-32/21 मे पुधलस उप- महाधनरीकक महोदय, मुंगेर {ks=, मुंगेर दारा जापांक-1412/गो0, Patna High Court CWJC No.8770 of 2024(2) dt.05-02-2026 3/3 धद0-13.12.23 के माधयम से पाधरत आदेश, जाँच पदाधधकारी के मंतवय, आरोप- izk:i को धनरसत कर धदया गया एवं धनलंधबत रखने के संबंध मे धनररय लेने हेतु पुधलस उप- महाधनरीकक महोदय, मुंगेर {ks=, मुंगेर को धदया गया। उकत आदेश के आलोक मे मुंगेर {ks=kns”k सं0- 152/2023 तद्नुसार मुंगेर धजलादेश सं0-940/2023 तद्‌नुसार जापांक-2500/र 0 का0, धद0-14.06.2023 मुझे सेवा मे लेने का आदेश धदया गया। उकत आदेश के आलोक मे मधेपुरा धजलादेश सं0- 664/23, तद्‌नुसार जापांक-1027/20 का0, धद0-23.06.23 के माधयम से सेवा मे धलया गया एवं योगदान की धतधथ-22.6.23 से जीवन यापन भता मेरे अनुरोध आवेदन पर धदया गया। " 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. Prakashmani/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) U