JUDGMENT

1. This case is yet another example, when the Court is constrained to interfere with the decision of the Government, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the allegation that he was arrested by the Vigilance sleuths, while accepting bribe, predominantly because of the profound failure on the part of the Department to adduce any evidence during the course of the departmental enquiry. The Court records, at the very outset, its displeasure for the grave lapse on the part of the respondents in pursuing a departmental action in accordance with the disciplinary Rules, despite seriousness of misconduct alleged, for which the petitioner was proceeded departmentally. The lapse, in my view, is ominous and speaks either of connivance or absence of training of personnel charged with the duties of holding/conducting a departmental enquiry/presenting a case against the delinquent on behalf of the department.

2. I have heard Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Sriram Krishna, learned A.C. to S.C.-11 representing the State. Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel has appeared with Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1, lea