JUDGMENT :

Though the matter has been listed under the heading ‘To Be Mentioned’, it has been heard on merits, with consent of the parties as the pleadings are complete.

2. The petitioner has put to challenge the order, dated 07.08.2014, issued by the Directorate of Industries under the signature of Director, Industries, Government of Bihar, whereby punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed on him. The petitioner was working as Industry Extension Officer and was posted, at the relevant point of time, at Industry Center, Madhepura, when he was allegedly arrested by a team of Vigilance Investigation Bureau of the State, while accepting bribe of Rs.2,000.00. After his arrest, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him with the issuance of charge-sheet and appointment of an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. Following was the charge, framed against him :-

^^fnukad 11-09-07 dks Jherh ique dqekjh ds ifr Jh dkS'ky fd'kksj Hkxr] firk&Jh egs'ojh izlkn Hkxr] xzke$iks0&Jhiwj] Hkk;k&feBkbZ ftyk&e/ksiqjk ls iz/kkuea=h jkstxkj ;kstuk dk _.k vkosnu i= lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k] eq[; 'kk[kk] e/ksiqjk dks Hkstus gsrq :i;s 2000@& fj'or ysrs fuxjkuh /kkok ny }kjk fxjrkj gksdj Fkkuk dk.M la[;k & 105@07 fnukad 12-09-07 esa Hkz0 fu0 vf/k0&1988 dh /kkjk 7@13¼2½ ifBr /kkjk&13¼1½ ¼Mh0½ ds vUrxZr vfHk;ksftr gksukA^^

3. It is evident from the charge-sheet that the charge, which was framed against him, was of having been arrested by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau in a trap laid by them while accepting gratification of a sum of Rs.2000/-from the husband of one Mrs. Punam Kumari for sending her loan application to the Main Branch, Madhepura, of Central Bank of India leading to registration of Vigilance P. S. Case No.105/07 for the offence punishable under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge, so framed against the petitioner, was denied by him in his written statement of defence stating that he was falsely and maliciously implicated in the criminal case for ulterior purpose.

4. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 11.03.2014 recording his finding on basis of materials/evidence produced before him that the allegation against the petitioner of having accepted bribe could not be said to be proved and he could, therefore, be exonerated of the said charge. The enquiry report has been brought on record by way of Annexure-7 to the writ application. The report of the Enquiry Officer was not accepted by the Director Industries, Government of Bihar. The Director, Industries, through his letter dated 30.05.2014 asked the petitioner to submit his reply as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him, as his arrest by the Vigilance Team, while accepting bribe, is a serious misconduct, punishable under the provisions of Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. In view of the submissions, which have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner, the contents of the said letter dated 30.05.2014 need to be quoted and are accordingly reproduced hereinbelow : -

^^mi;ZqDr fo"k; ds lEcU/k esa dguk gS fd tk¡p inkf/kdkjh ds i=kad 905 fnukad 11-03-14 }kjk tk¡p izfrosnu lefiZr fd;k x;k gSA tk¡p izfrosnu dh leh{kk dh x;h] leh{kksijkUr mls vLohd`r dj fn;k x;k gSA vki dks fj'or ysrs jaxs gkFk fuxjkuh /kkok ny ds }kjk fxjrkj fd;k x;k tks ljdkjh deZpkjh ds vkpj.k ds fo:) gS rFkk fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh 2005 ds rgr xEHkhj dnkpkj gSA

vr% tk¡p izfrosnu dh Nk;kizfr Hkstrs gq, dguk gS fd vkids fo:) dkjZokbZ D;ksa ugha dh tk; \ ij viuk tcko i= izkfIr ds 7 ¼lkr½ fnuksa ds vUnj funs'kky; dks miyC/k djkuk lqfuf'pr djsA^^

5. It is evident from the letter dated 30.05.2014 that it did not mention as to how the report of the Enquiry Officer was not acceptable to him and on what basis, the allegation against the petitioner of having accepted bribe could be said to be established on the basis of materials available in the departmental enquiry.