CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–The petitioner has put to challenge an office order No. 11 dated 24.02.2014, issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, whereby punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him. His appeal against the order of dismissal has been rejected, as communicated to him through letter dated 27.06.2014, issued under the signature of the Special Secretary of the Department, which is also under challenge in the present application.

2. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was functioning as Junior Engineer under National Rural Employment Project Division, Muzaffarpur, under the said Department.

3. The substratum of the impugned disciplinary action is the petitioner’s arrest by Vigilance Investigation Bureau on the allegation of corruption in the nature of demanding bribe from a beneficiary and receiving the same from the complainant. Allegedly, he was apprehended red-handed by a raiding team constituted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau while accepting bribe, leading to registration of FIR bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 085/2006 dated 29.11.2006 for the offences punishable under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. I have heard Mr. Akhilesh Dutta Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahendra Prasad Verma, learned AC to SC-20.

5. Admitted facts, which have emerged on the basis of the pleadings on record, are that consequent upon the petitioner’s arrest by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau he was placed under suspension by an order dated 29.12.2006 with effect from the date of his arrest. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was issued by an office order dated 10.12.2007 stipulating a departmental inquiry in accordance with the provisions under Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the [BGS(CCA) Rules]. Rule 17 of BGS(CCA) Rules lays down the procedure for imposing major penalties. The charge-sheet in Prapatra- ‘ka’ is there on record. It was alleged against the petitioner in the charge-sheet that he was demanding gratification from the complainant Ram Naresh Singh for facilitating payment of wages to the labourers. On the basis of the complaint the petitioner was apprehended allegedly while taking a bribe of Rs. 3,000/- by a raiding team constituted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau on 29.11.2006, whereafter he was remanded to judicial custody. An Inquiring Authority was appointed by the same office order dated 10.12.2007. A Presenting Officer was also appointed. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Inquiring Authority. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 17 of BGS(CCA) Rules requires, inter alia, that if an inquiry is proposed under the said Rule, the Disciplinary Authority shall draw up or caused to be drawn up a statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the article of charge which shall contain, inter alia, a list of such documents by which, and a list of such witnesses by whom, the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained. The charge-sheet, however, did not contain any list of witness(es). Letter No. 1015 dated 19.12.2006 received from the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Government of Bihar was the only document cited in the list of documents.

6. The petitioner denied the allegations in his response dated 17.06.2010 addressed to the Inquiring Authority and demanded supply of certain documents, as, according to him, those documents were essential for him to submit his effective defence. Dealing with the letter received from the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department dated 19.12.2006, the petitioner took a plea that by the said communication merely sanction for prosecution in criminal case was sought. It was further mentioned in the said communication that if any clarification was required from the Investigating Officer of the criminal case, he (the investigating officer)