ORDER

This is yet another example where disciplinary action has been taken in the nature of imposition of punishment of dismissal from service of a Government servant on the charge of corruption, without any evidence adduced during the departmental proceeding.

2. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 27.10.2014 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur whereby he has been dismissed from service after having held guilty of misconduct in the present writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner’s appeal has been dismissed by an order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, which has also been assailed in the present case.

3. The admitted facts of the case are that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was working as a Clerk in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur. A complaint petition was filed by one Dhanesh Kumar in 2008 alleging therein that the petitioner was demanding from him illegal gratification to ensure his appointment on compassionate ground in the concerned office. On the basis of the said complaint made to the Vigilance Department, allegedly upon verification of the complaint a raiding party was constituted. The raiding team of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau conducted a raid. The petitioner was apprehended by the raiding party, allegedly while accepting bribe on 25.09.2008. An F.I.R. bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 74 of 2008 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention & Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was placed under suspension consequent upon his arrest. A departmental proceeding was subsequently initiated against him with the issuance of charge sheet and appointment of the Enquiring Authority on 13.12.2008. There were three charges framed against him:—

(i) The petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2008 on the allegation of bribery.

(ii) Arrest of the petitioner while taking bribe.

(iii) Registration of F.I.R. against the petitioner bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 74 of 2008.

4. Two documents were cited in the charge sheet on the basis of which the charges framed against the petitioner were proposed to be sustained. No name of any witness on whose evidence the Department proposed to sustain the charges was furnished with the charge sheet. The petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence before the Enquiring Authority, which he did. He denied the allegation against him of demand of bribe and acceptance of the bribe money by him.

5. The Enquiring Authority on the basis of the materials before him in the said departmental enquiry submitted a report on 03.12.2009, addressed to the Regional Deputy Director Education Department. He did not record any finding in respect of charge framed against him. He rather opined that the petitioner’s order of suspension should be revoked. The order of suspension was subsequently revoked by an order dated 26.03.2010 issued by the Regional Deputy Director Education Department.

6. Nearly three and a half years thereafter, the Regional Deputy Director came out with an office order dated 27.01.2014 notifying appointing a new enquiring authority and a presenting officer. The second Enquiring Authority submitted its report on 02.05.2014 which has been brought on record by way of Annexure P/11 to the writ application. The second Enquiring Authority recorded his finding that all the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The said report of the Enquiring Authority was supplied to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority asking him to submit his representation thereon. The petitioner submitted his representation, again denying the charge against him and taking specific plea that the finding recorded by the Enquiring Authority should not be accepted, as no evidence at all was adduced in support of the charges, except the police papers.