The charges against the petitioner did not constitute misconduct, and the finding of the enquiring authority was unsustainable due to lack of evidence and legal infirmity. The impugned order of dismissal was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with back wages due to the casual conduct of the departmental proceeding.

JUDGMENT

1. A notification No. 674 dated 28.02.2020 issued by the Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure-11 to LA. No. 3 of 2020) issued vide Memo No. 675 of the same date, whereby punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed on the petitioner is under challenge in the present writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also challenged the correctness of the finding recorded by the enquiring authority in respect of the first charge out of the three charges framed against him in the departmental proceeding.

2. I have heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Binod Kumar, Mr. Raju Giri and Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajey, learned G.A.-5 assisted by Mr. Ashish Kumar Lal, A.C. to GA-5 for the respondent State of Bihar.

3. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was posted as an Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Gopalganj. On the allegation of having acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, a First Information Report was registered on 19.02.2013 for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act' for short), by the Economic Offence Unit, bearing Economic Offence PS. Case No. 06/2013. He was put under suspension by a subsequent notification dated 13.03.2013. A departmental proceeding was initiated for imposition of major punishment in accordance with the provisions of Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 [For short 'BGS(CCA) Rules'] with the issuance of a charge-sheet vide Memo No. 2148 dated 06.06.2013 containing two charges. Charge No. 1 merely referred to registration of First Information Report by the Economic Offence Unit. Charge No. 2 mentioned that because of the action taken by the Economic Offence Unit, the image of the Government stood tarnished and that his conduct was contrary to Bihar Government Servant (Conduct) Rules, 2011. A communication dated 26.03.2013 made by the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Unit-3, addressed to the Joint Secretary, Rural Works Department, was the only evidence disclosed in the charge-sheet on which the Department intended to sustain the charges against the petitioner. The Departmental Enquiry Commissioner, Bihar, was appointed as the enquiring authority. An officer of the rank of Deputy Secretary in the Department was appointed as the Presenting Officer. This is not in dispute that subsequently, the memo of charge in 'Prapatra-Ka' was modified and in the modified charge-sheet, three charges were framed against him. Following were the three charges : -

Charge No. 1 : There is a stipulation under letter No. 17521 dated 21.12.2012 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, for all officers and employees of the State Government and its undertakings to declare and make public the details of their movable and immovable assets and liabilities. Many of disparities have been noticed between the declaration of the property details made by the petitioner for the year 2012-13 and, that found in the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau. According to the said report, total possible saving has been found at Rs. 23 lakhs, whereas the investment made by the petitioner has been found to the tune of Rs. 1,31,93,322/-. The petitioner, thus, violated the said provision contained in the aforementioned letter dated 21.12.2012. Further, he appeared to be guilty of having acquired assets beyond known sources of income.

Charge No. 2 : A case has been registered against the petitioner for having acquired assets disproportionate to known sources of his income vide Economic Offence Unit Case No. 06 of 2013 dated 19.02.2013 for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. Charge No. 3 : Because of the action taken by the Economic