Procedural fairness and the requirement of sufficient evidence before imposing severe punishments such as dismissal.

MADHURESH PRASAD, J.

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent-State.

2. The petitioner has challenged the award of punishment issued under Memo No. 521 dated 29.02.2012 whereby and where under Deputy Inspector General of Police (for brevity, DIG), Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur has awarded the petitioner the punishment of dismissal. The Appellate Authority has rejected the petitioner's appeal under order dated 14.09.2012 bearing Memo No. 1890 issued under the signature of Inspector General of Police (for brevity, IG), Muzaffarpur Region. The memorial of the petitioner has also been rejected by order dated 26.07.2013 issued by the Director General of Police (for brevity, DGP), Bihar, Patna. Petitioner has also sought quashing of these two orders.

3. The charge memo leading to the proceedings was issued to the petitioner on 14.10.2008 under Memo No. 4559. The allegations against the petitioner was that for managing a favourable final form in favour of the allegationist in Kanti Police Station (for brevity, PS) Case No. 214 of 2008, he had demanded an amount of Rs. 60,000/-. The allegationist has complained that when she was visiting the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (for brevity, Dy S P), Muzaffarpur to enquire about the status of investigation of the first information report (for brevity, FIR), the petitioner who, at that time, was posted as a Reader, had told her that the accused persons had assured to pay him Rs. 50,000/- for having a report prepared that the case lodged by the allegationist is not true. By saying so, he has asked the allegationist to offer an amount of Rs. 60,000/- so that a final form favourable to the allegationist may be got prepared. The charge memo records that on such allegation, a raiding team was constituted and the petitioner was caught red handed on 15.09.2008 while accepting the bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the allegationist Birla Devi when she was visiting the office of Dy S P along with her nephew (sister's son Rajesh Thakur).

4. On the basis of such allegations, petitioner has been proceeded against and the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer who was the Dy S P. During the course of enquiry, the allegationist has given her statement before the Enquiry Officer in writing in which she has denied the allegations. The allegationist Birla Devi, in her statement submitted before the Enquiry Officer (Annexure 2), has clearly stated that when she had gone to the office of the Dy S P on the fateful day, she was informed that her case had already been finalized. It was only when she had gone out of the office that some third person had allured her into signing the application forming the basis of petitioner's implication in the vigilance case as well as in the instant departmental proceedings.

5. She has clearly stated in her statement that she had not paid any money to the petitioner. The same statement is submitted by Rajesh Thakur, the allegationist's sister's son. The said two statements have been considered by the Enquiry Officer and taken note of in the proceedings. The enquiry report, therefore, had been submitted that the allegationist had not sustained the charges in the proceedings. On the contrary, she had specifically denied the allegations altogether. The Enquiry Officer has, after concluding so, at the end of the enquiry report, while considering that the petitioner has been arrested on the same very allegation, has gone on to record a finding for which no charge has been instituted and for which no enquiry has been conducted. The Enquiry Officer has recorded as follows:

D;ksafd dk;kZy; vof/k esa vkjksfir viuk dk;kZy; NksM+dj jkts'k Bkdqj ds dgus ij dk;kZy; ls ckgj pys x;s FksA

6. At this juncture, it will be relevant to take notice of the fact that in the proceedings arising out of Vigilance PS Case No. 64 of 2008 instituted against the petitioner for the same allegation, he has been acquitted. The allegationi