In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. The onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed. If the employer has acted in gross violation of statutory provisions and/or principles of natural justice, full back wages may be justified.

JUDGMENT :

Mohit Kumar Shah, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.05.2018, passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Director (Primary Education), Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 20.01.2020, issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna i.e. the respondent no. 2, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected as also has prayed for quashing of the inquiry report dated 24.10.2017 and for directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

3. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was posted as Block Education Officer, Triveniganj, District-Supaul, he is alleged to have been wrongly implicated by one Manoj Kumar Mehta who was then posted as Centre Coordinator (Teacher) at Middle School Uparkha in the Block Triveniganj of Supaul District. The complainant in his complaint dated 24.11.2015, made before the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, against the petitioner and another Assistant Teacher namely Vidyanand Kumar posted at Middle School, Karmaniya, had alleged that the said two persons had demanded bribe for granting enhancement in pay scale, on account of passing of the efficiency test. It has been stated by the petitioner that prior to filing of the aforesaid complaint dated 24.11.2015 by the complainant, the petitioner, in the capacity of Block Education Officer, Triveniganj, had submitted an inquiry report against the complainant namely Manoj Kumar Mehta regarding his indiscipline and uncontrolled behaviour against the Headmasters and other teachers of the Primary School, Medhia and in fact, the statement of the lady teachers, who were also subjected to misbehaviour by the said Manoj Kumar Mehta, were also recorded during the inquiry proceedings conducted by the petitioner herein, whereafter, upon submission of the inquiry report by the petitioner, proceedings were initiated against the said Manoj Kumar Mehta, resulting in him being restrained from working as a Co-ordinator. It is submitted that on account of vendetta against the petitioner, the complainant had filed the aforesaid complaint dated 24.11.2015.

4. It appears that the Vigilance Investigation Bureau had constituted a trap team and conducted a raid on 04.12.2015 at the office of the Block Education Officer, Triveniganj, District-Supaul and is alleged to have caught the petitioner taking a bribe of a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a memo of charge, containing Prapatra-Ka vide letter dated 17.06.2016 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the allegation of him having demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as bribe from Manoj Kumar Mehta for granting him enhancement in pay scale, for showing negligence in his duties and having been caught red-handed by the trap team of Vigilance Investigation Bureau on 04.12.2015 at the office of the Block Education Officer taking bribe of a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner had then submitted his replies dated 16.12.2016 and 27.06.2017 stating therein that the independent witnesses have denied the incident, of the petitioner having been caught red-handed taking bribe of a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, to have taken place before them and in fact have also submitted their statements on oath/ affidavit. It is also the case of the petitioner that the complainant was drawing the enhanced salary since 01.01.2015, hence a wrong complaint was made by the complainant.

5. The Inquiry Officer had conducted the departmental inquiry and had submitted the inquiry report vide letter dated 16.01.2017, wherein it has been concluded that considering the situation, the clarification submitted by the delinquent as also the available documents and evidence, it would not be