JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner initially filed the present writ application for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 26-08-2019 vide Notification No. 7682 (as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and further for setting aside the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer dated 08/08/2018 on the ground that the same is based upon no evidence. However, during the pendency of the writ application the petitioner filed an interlocutory application bearing LA. No. 1 of 2019 challenging the order dated 3-12-2019 vide Memo No. 10509 (as contained in Annexure 8 to the interlocutory application) by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal has been rejected.

2. Taking into consideration the nature of relief sought for in the LA., the same is allowed and the statements and prayer made in the interlocutory application would form part of this writ application.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer in the Building Construction Department, Rajendra Nagar Sub Division Office, Patna, one Rajesh Kumar (Contractor) submitted a written complaint on 28.02.2017 before the Vigilance Investigation Bureau alleging demand of Rs. 25,000/- by the petitioner for clearing a bill of Rs. 4,76,310/-. On the basis of the said complaint a vigilance trap was laid and the petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2017 allegedly while accepting Rs. 25,000/- as bribe from the complainant and accordingly a First Information Report in this regard was lodged vide Vigilance RS. Case No. 18 of 2017 against the petitioner for offences under Section 7/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On the basis of institution of the vigilance case a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and memo of charge dated 31/07/2017 was served upon him containing two charges:-

(i) that the petitioner demanded from the contractor - Rajesh Kumar 5% of the bill amount of Rs. 4,76,310/-; and(ii) that the petitioner was caught red handed by the vigilance sleuths while accepting bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from the contractor - Rajesh Kumar.

4. In the memo of charge the letter no. 669 dated 15-03-2017 of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna and letter no. 2922 dated 06-03-2017 of the Superintending Engineer, South, Bihar Circle, Building Construction Department, Patna are mentioned as documentary evidences.

5. The enquiry officer after completion of enquiry submitted enquiry report at Annexure 3 dated 08/08/2018 and the disciplinary authority being satisfied with the findings of the enquiry officer imposed the punishment of dismissal vide notification dated 26/08/2019 at Annexure-6 to the writ petition and the same has been upheld by the appellate authority by order dated 3.12.2019 at Annexure 8 to the interlocutory application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ application argued that the basis of the present enquiry against the petitioner is that the Vigilance Investigation Bureau arrested the petitioner red handed while accepting bribe of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the contractor in question but the memo of charge does not mention the name of any witness to be produced during the course of enquiry by the Department in order to prove the charges except the two letters which have been made the basis of the enquiry i.e. letter dated 15-03-2017 bearing letter no. 669 of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna and letter dated 06-03-2017 bearing letter no. 2922 of the Superintending Engineer, South, Bihar Circle, Building Construction Department, Patna and the copy of the FIR which formed a part of the letter dated 15/03/2017. He further submits that during the course of enquiry no oral evidence was produced to prove the charges against the petitioner and further no witness was examined to prove even the said