JUDGMENT

1. This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

2. At the relevant point of the time, the petitioner was working as a Block Development Officer, Parwalpur, in the District of Nalanda. On the basis of a complaint filed by one Mohan Lal, Mukhiya (the complainant) regarding demand of bribe being made by the petitioner, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau had conducted a raid. The petitioner was apprehended on the allegation of having been caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000/-. He was put under suspension, as he was taken into custody. He was subsequently enlarged on bail and was allowed to join his post. However, he was again put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. A memo of charge was served upon him. The charge against the petitioner read as under:-

3. Evidently, the petitioner's arrest by the team of Vigilance Investigation Bureau while accepting bribe was the only allegation against the petitioner, which had led to registration of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 10/2011 against him. From the charge memo, it is evident that vague reference to letters issued by the Rural Development Department, Vigilance Department and certain orders passed by this Court was made in the list of documents on which the department intended to rely to establish the charge against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the charge framed against him, a copy of which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-5 to the writ application. During the enquiry, one Ramdev Yadav (an independent witness) was examined by the department. A copy of his statement has been brought on record by way of Annexure-6 to the writ application. Though he accepted that he learnt about the occurrence on the subsequent date, he said that he did not know anything on the date when the occurrence had taken place on 03.02.2011. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the rented house of one Parshuram Singh at Parwalpur, in which, the petitioner was residing as a tenant. Ramdev Yadav is next-door neighbour of the said Mohan Lal, Mukhiya, the complainant.

4. The Enquiring Authority submitted his report on 14.08.2013 wherein he concluded that the charge to the effect that Vigilance P.S. Case No. 10/2011 was registered on 04.02.2011 and the petitioner was apprehended allegedly while taking bribe was proved but the Enquiring Authority but refrained from recording a finding that the petitioner was arrested red-handed while accepting the bribe, the same being subject matter of trial pending before a court of competent jurisdiction. He further concluded that on the basis of evidence of the independent witness and other documents made available during the departmental enquiry, it could not be established that the petitioner had made any demand for bribe for granting administrative approval of a work under BRGF(Backward Region Grant Fund) scheme since no such document in relation to construction of a community building under BRGF scheme was produced till 03.02.2011, when he was arrested.

5. The petitioner was, however, put to a second show-cause notice through letter no. 163 dated 15.01.2014 issued by the Labour Commissioner, Government of Bihar (the Disciplinary Authority). In the second show-cause notice dated 15.01.2014, the Labour Commissioner recorded that in view of the report of the Enquiring Authority, the charge against the petitioner of making demand of bribe money and his subsequent arrest red-handed by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau stood prima facie proved. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation, as to why a major punishment be not imposed upon him in accordance with the provisions under Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The petitioner submitted his reply stating specifically that the Enquiring authority did not hold the charge against the