JUDGMENT :

The facts, which are not in dispute and are relevant for adjudication of this matter, are as under:-

The petitioner is the widow of one Manoj Kumar, who, at the relevant point of time was posted as Rajasva Karmachari, Begusarai Sadar Circle in the District of Begusarai. He was apprehended by a vigilance team on the charge of corruption on 27.11.2008 leading to registration of Vigilance Case No. 101 of 2018. He was placed under suspension. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide Departmental Enquiry Case No. 02/2009 under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules’) vide memo no. 652 dated 25.07.2009. An Enquiring Authority and a Presenting Officer were appointed for the said departmental proceeding. The Enquiring Authority submitted his report dated 26.11.2009, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-6 to the writ application. There were four charges framed against the deceased husband of the petitioner. In respect of the charges no. 1, 2 and 4, the Enquiry Authority recorded his specific finding that the same could not be said to have been proved. In respect of charge no. 3, the Enquiring Authority opined that the conduct of the government servant could be described ‘clerical error’ for which he could be issued a note of caution to be careful in future.

2. The District Magistrate, who was the disciplinary authority, however, decided to cause a fresh departmental enquiry 2nd departmental enquiry) in respect of the same set of charges vide memo no. 1141 of 13.11.2009, this time appointing the Deputy Collector Land Reforms as the Enquiring Authority and Circle Officer as the Presenting Officer. Subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer was appointed by the Enquiring Authority. The Enquiring Authority submitted his report dated 04.04.2010 doubting the manner, in which, the pre-trap and post-trap memorandum were prepared by the vigilance team and opined that there appeared to be an old animosity existing between the charged government servant and two witnesses of the post-trap memorandum, who could not be treated to be independent witnesses. He further recorded that since the matter was sub judice and the facts required judicial scrutiny, no conclusive finding could be recorded by him. He also opined that it would be better if disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner’s husband after conclusion of the criminal case. Four years after the enquiry report was submitted, the petitioner’s deceased husband was again put under suspension by an order dated 23.01.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai and in respect of the same allegation leading to petitioner’s arrest in the criminal case, another departmental enquiry no. 34 of 2014 (3rd departmental enquiry) was initiated with the issuance of fresh charge memo dated 24.01.2014. The petitioner’s deceased husband was asked to submit his written statement of defence, which he had submitted. This time, the Addl. Collector-cum-the Enquiring Authority submitted his report holding that the charge against the petitioner’s husband of having been arrested while accepting bribe, stood proved.

3. Without, however, passing any order on the report of the Enquiring Authority dated 29.01.2014, the District Magistrate, Begusarai passed another order dated 11.02.2014 appointing the Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai as the Enquiring Authority (4th departmental enquiry) and Circle Officer as the Presenting Officer. The District Development Commissioner held the petitioner’s husband guilty of the charge of having attempted to accept bribe leading to his arrest by the vigilance team. Petitioner’s husband was supplied a copy of the enquiry report with a direction to him to submit his response within three days, as it was proposed to impose one of the major punishments under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules. By an order dated 26.05.2014, the District Magistrate, Begusarai passed