JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.06.2014 passed by the Labour Commissioner, Bihar contained in Memo No. 1614, whereby he has been dismissed from service with immediate effect on the basis of proved allegation of financial irregularities and defalcation as also the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Labour Commissioner, Bihar, confirming the earlier order of punishment.

3. The petitioner while serving as Block Development Officer, Sonahula Block in the district of Bhagalpur was made accused in a Vigilance case vide Vigilance P. S. Case No. 71 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 409 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(C)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The aforesaid F.I.R. was filed on the basis of a complaint regarding misappropriation in distribution of grants for diesel.

4. The petitioner was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 29.03.2014. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he replied in detail.

5. The Labour Commissioner, Bihar vide order dated 11.06.2014, referred to above, dismissed the petitioner from service with immediate effect.

6. It further appears from the records that the petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules of 2005 before the Departmental Secretary. On 22.08.2016, the petitioner was informed that the regular service appeal preferred by him had been treated as revision under rule 28 of the CCA Rules, 2005 and was directed to present his case before the Labour Commissioner. Consequently, the petitioner appeared before the Labour Commissioner and pleaded his case. But the Labour Commissioner vide order dated 01.12.2016 rejected all the submissions of the petitioner and concurred with the order of dismissal passed by the erstwhile Labour Commissioner.

7. The orders impugned in the present petition have been challenged on several grounds. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the enquiry report was inconclusive as it did not record any finding on the charge levelled against the petitioner. All that the enquiry report says is that the petitioner acted in a negligent manner and therefore could be held responsible for the irregularity only indirectly. It was therefore argued that the Enquiry Officer, who is a quasi-judicial authority had to apply his mind independently on the basis of evidence produced in support of the charges.

8. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Presenting Officer never made himself available before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer assumed the role of prosecutor as well. Thus, in the event of the statutory requirements as provided under rule 17(3) to 17(6) of the 2005 Rules not having been complied with, the entire required report stands vitiated.

9. It has further been argued that the disciplinary authority came to a totally different conclusion which is not based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The only evidence before the disciplinary authority was the F.I.R. and the report of the Vigilance, which were treated as conclusive evidence for establishing the guilt of the petitioner. Similar grounds have been raised while challenging the order passed in appeal/ revision.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions rendered in Uday Pratap Singh Versus State of Bihar [2017 (4) PLJR 195]; Roop Singh Negi Versus Punjab National Bank [(2009) 2 SCC 570]; and Sharda Devi Versus The Patliputra Central Cooperative Bank [2017 (1) PLJR 859] and has submitted that the enquiry report is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

11. It has further been submitted that the reply of the petitioner/ delinquent has not at all been considered by the disciplinary authority and the only basis of the dis