JUDGMENT :

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

The appellant being partly successful before the learned Single Judge, has filed this Intra Court Appeal questioning the direction issued by the leaned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2019 in C.W.J.C. No. 13200 of 2017, whereby the matter has been remitted back to the respondent Department for appointing another Disciplinary Authority, who after going through the reply given by the petitioner to the second show-cause notice and other evidence available on record, is to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The dispute arises out of a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant who has been dismissed from service and has come up before this Court questioning the entire proceedings.

2. The main thrust of the argument on behalf of the appellant is that keeping in view the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, the entire departmental inquiry being vitiated and having been found to be so on two occasions, there was no need to remand the matter for a decision afresh.

3. To appreciate the facts in brief, one need not go in detail, as the same have been noted in the first round of litigation before this Court, but the chronology deserves to be mentioned in order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant who is facing these proceedings since 2011.

4. One Kranti Kumar lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Muzaffarpur on 22nd December, 2011 that the appellant, who was functioning as a Dairy Field Officer in the District Dairy Development Office at Madhubani, had demanded a bribe from him in order to clear his cheque for receiving the subsidy in respect of a Dairy loan that had been sanctioned in his favour. It was alleged that a sum of Rs. 1,000/-had already been paid to him and that the appellant had called upon the said Kranti Kumar to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/-on 27th December, 2011. It may be mentioned that from the documents on record, the loan was for Rs. 70,850/- on which a subsidy was to be given to the loanee to the tune of Rs. 27,250/-. The loan was to be transacted on a margin money of Rs. 10,900/-to be deposited by the applicant. It is on this transaction that the amount of subsidy was to be reimbursed by way of a cheque that had led to the alleged demand of bribe by the appellant.

5. On 27th December, 2011 a trap was set up and according to the documents on record, including the pre-trap and the post-trap memos, the appellant was caught red handed in his office accepting a bribe of Rs. 4,000/-out of which there were three notes of Rs. 1,000/-each and two currency notes of Rs. 500/- each. The appellant was arrested and sent to jail.

6. The department proceeded to suspend him on 5th of January, 2012. The appellant was granted bail by the High Court on 24th April, 2012 and on 30th of May, 2012 his suspension was revoked.

7. The departmental proceedings were initiated with the issuance of a charge-sheet date 16.09.2013 communicated on 17.09.2013. At that stage, two charges were levelled, the first that of the appellant being involved in the trap case and the second charge was of being absent from duty with effect from 27th December, 2011 without information to the department. The inquiry proceeded without any oral evidence either of the original complainant Kranti Kumar or any of the officers or witnesses of the trap case. The Inquiry Report was submitted on 27th January, 2014 and a show-cause was issued on 11th February, 2014. An amended show-cause notice is said to have been issued on 14th February, 2014, but according to the appellant, before its service on 26.02.2014, the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 22nd February, 2014.

8. The evidence that was relied on were two documents, one was a press release dated 29.12.2011 and another letter dated 29.12.2011 in this regard. No other evidence, according to the appellant, was led and the inquiry