JUDGMENT

RAJIV ROY, J.:–

The present appeal is directed against the order dated 21.06.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3175 of 2009 (Rajendra Ram Vs. The State of Bihar) by which the learned Single Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar, as his Lordship then was) allowed the writ petition setting aside the orders by which punishment order vide memo no. 3373 dated 02.04.2007 was passed against the respondent-petitioner as also government resolution vide memo no. 1469 dated 6.2.2008 by which the appeal preferred by him was rejected by the Appellate Authority.

2. The matrix of facts leading to the present appeal is/are as follows:—

3. Vide notification no. 1652 dated 31.12.1990, the respondent-petitioner was posted as Consolidation Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua where he joined on 26.3.1992. While serving at Kaimur, he was given additional charge as Deputy Collector, Establishment, Bhabhua Collectorate as also Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bhabhua and In-charge of the District Legal Cell vide letter dated 2.4.1992, 8.7.1992 and 2.7.1992 by the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua. Besides, he also served as Circle Officer, Bhabua following the direction dated 20.9.1992 issued by the office of District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua.

4. The respondent-petitioner was transferred as Circle Officer, Bagaha in the district of West Champaran, Bettiah vide notification no. 312 dated 30.6.1995 which he joined accordingly.

5. The Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar Patna (henceforth for short “the Department”) vide memo no. 3048 dated 22.04.2000 served the memo of charge with a direction to submit show cause which he replied denying the charge vide letter no. 1107 dated 22.04.2001.

6. Thereafter, vide memo no. 2825 dated 24.9.2002, the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner was appointed as Enquiry Officer while the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua was directed to appoint any Senior Officer as Presenting Officer. The respondent-petitioner was directed to submit his written defence which he diligently submitted on 31.12.2002.

7. As stated above, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent petitioner under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rule, 1930 (henceforth for short as CCA Rules).

8. Altogether eight charges were framed against the respondent-petitioner which are as follows:—

(i) that in the year 1993 while the petitioner was posted as Chakbandi Officer, Chand/Chainpur and incharge Anchaladhikari, Bhabua, Dy. Collector Record Room was unauthorizedly absent during that period without the prior permission of the Collector. The then Collector directed the then S.D.O. Bhabua to give warning to the petitioner that he will not leave the head quarter without prior permission of the Collector.

(ii) that the petitioner was deputed as Magistrate in charge by the order of S.D.O., Bhabua to conduct peaceful Intermediate Examination, 1993 at Bhupesh Gupta College, Bhabua but he did not perform his duty nor gave satisfactory explanation asked by S.D.O. Bhabua, so the petitioner was found prima facie guilty for disobeying the order of Higher Official.

(iii) that when the petitioner was in additional charge of Circle Officer, Bhabua the Public Account Committee of Bihar Vidhan Sabha blamed the petitioner that he had disposed of several mutation cases after handing over charges. Charge against him is proved in Mutation Case No. 1150/93-94 that he had mutated the name in post dated and sent record after 25 days of his handing over charges after 25 days of his handing over charges to his successor.

(iv) that the petitioner had misused the power in the matter of Integrated Rural Development Program in not timely forwarding petition to the bank concerned and kept them pending. The petitioner sent the selected beneficer’s petition to the concerned bank with a comment that “after payment of rent of session 1993-94 the petition should be accepted”. These allegations were personally enquired by the then D.M. and a