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, learned counsel, on behalf of the Bihar Public Service Commission.

3. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrested by the personnel of Vigilance Investigation Bureau on the charge of accepting illegal gratification of a sum of Rs.10,000/-, leading to registration of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 69 of 2009 on 12.05.2009. Another Vigilance P.S. Case No.86 of 2009 was registered against him for having acquired assets, disproportionate to his all known sources of income, to the tune of Rs.75,53,981/-.

4. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner containing two charges, both akin to the allegations made in the two criminal cases, as noted above. The Departmental Enquiry Commissioner was appointed as the Inquiring Authority. A Presenting Officer was also appointed to place the case of the department before the Inquiring Authority. The charge memo has been brought on record by way of Annexure-4 to the writ application, which was issued through letter dated 03.02.2010, under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was posted as Excise Superintendent at Muzaffarpur.

5. It can be easily noticed from the forwarding letter issuing charge sheet that except the charge memo, no other document was annexed therewith. It is also apparent from the charge-sheet in Prapatra Ka , that in support of the charge of accepting illegal gratification, the departmental relied on letters dated 16.05.2009 and 25.06.2009 issued by the Vigilance Department (Investigation Bureau). To support the charge of acquiring disproportionate assets, the Department intended to rely on letter dated 10.11.2009, again issued by the Vigilance Department.

6. The petitioner was asked to explain. While denying the charges leveled against him, the petitioner had sought for supply of certain documents for the purpose of effectively defending his case. This is not in dispute that not even a single witness was examined during the course of enquiry. The Inquiring Authority, on analysis of the materials, which were there on record, including pre-trap and post-trap memoranda and other documents, reached a definite conclusion that the complainant had got the petitioner implicated falsely, out of vengeance, leading to his arrest in the trap case. Dealing with the second charge, again in detail, the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner recorded his finding that the petitioner was required to explain disproportionate asset to the tune of Rs.6,43,473/- only as against the charge of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.75,53,981/- and recorded his finding that the petitioner had included the said amount of Rs.6,43,473/- in his income tax details. He, according