JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The case of the petitioner, a Block Supply Officer in short, is that along with the Sub Divisional Officer (for brevity, SDO), Dhaka, he had conducted the enquiry leading to action against Public Distribution System Dealers (for brevity, PDS dealers), namely, Tej Narayan Singh and Ramashankar Singh of village - Bakhri Hari of Dhaka Block. It is the petitioner’s case that being victimized by the said persons, false allegations were levelled against the petitioner regarding demand of illegal gratification and on that premise, he was arrested by the Vigilance. A first information report was instituted bearing Vigilance Police Station Case No 29 of 2012 under section 7/13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act subsequent upon the petitioner’s arrest on 23.03.2013.

3. On the same charges, Prapatra Ka came to be issued and proceedings were sought to be conducted against the petitioner by letter dated 01.03.2013 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar. Before the authorities, the petitioner pleaded that he was being victimized due to the action he had taken against the said PDS Dealers. The Enquiry Officer called for a report from the SDO, Sikrahana, Dhaka so as to verify the petitioner’s apprehension. The SDO has submitted his report dated 12.04.2013 wherein he has affirmed the petitioner’s allegations. The SDO has specifically communicated to the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was a part of the Enquiry Team making enquiries against the PDS Dealers on 21.12.2011.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Enquiry Officer has found the apprehension of the petitioner to be true in his Enquiry Report. He has specifically observed thus:-

^^vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] fldjguk dk i=kad 117 fnukad 12-4-13 ,oa fuyafcr iz[k.M vkiwfrZ inkf/kdkjh dk Li"Vhdj.k Hkonh; lsok esa fu.kZ; ysus gsrq miLFkkfir fd;k tk jgk gSA D;ksafd ;g ekeyk fuxjkuh U;k;ky; ds fopkjk/khu gS] vr% bl ij vuq'kalk djuk lehphu izrhr ugha gksrk gSA Jh ujsUnz izlkn iz[k.M vkiwfrZ inkf/kdkjh dk ;g dFku lR; gS fd ifjoknh Jh rst ukjk;.k flag ds nqdku dh tk¡p buds }kjk dh xbZ Fkh ,oa Jh jke'kadj flag ds nqdku dh tk¡p ds le; os vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] fldjguk ds lkFk mifLFkr Fks] vr% nqdku tk¡p djus dk dkj.k Hkh ifjokfn;ksa ds izfr'kks/k ds dkj.k gks ldrk gSA lk{; miLFkkiu inkf/kdkjh us viuk eUrO; ekeyk fuxjkuh U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gksus ds dkj.k ugha fn;k gSA vr% foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa vafre QSlyk ij igq¡puk rRdky lEcU/k izrhr ugha gksrk gSA tgk¡ rd fuxjkuh foHkkx }kjk dh x;h fxj~rkjh vkSj mlls lEcfU/kr okn dk iz'u gSA mldk fopkj.k l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk fd;s tkus ds mijkUr gh Jh ujsUnz izlkn iz[k.M vkiwfrZ inkf/kdkjh ds fo:) mDr vk/kkj ij dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gSA^^

5. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the proceedings instituted by virtue of the charge memo was aborted by the authorities. Charges were communicated afresh by issuance of Prapatra ‘Ka’ on 19.03.2014. The charges were again substantially the same for which the enquiry report had earlier been submitted. The petitioner objected to such proceedings de novo upon submission of the earlier enquiry report in his favour. He had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5628 of 2014. During pendency of the writ proceedings, the order of punishment was issued by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from service. The order of punishment is dated 15.5.2014, taking note of the aforesaid developments during pendency of the writ proceedings, the writ petition of the petitioner was disposed off with liberty to avail the remedy of appeal against the order of dismissal dated 15.05.2014. A detail and elaborate appeal was preferred by the petitioner. The same was disposed off by the Appellate Authority on 17.08.2015 by an order which lacked consideration of the issues raised by the petitioner in appeal. Order of the Appellate Authority being an order withou