SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.:–The petitioner by way of this writ petition assails the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the Director, Primary Education, Patna, whereby he has been dismissed from service in relation to a charge sheet and enquiry conducted vide memorandum dated 18.04.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this writ petition an appeal was preferred the same has also been rejected vide order dated 25.10.2019. He therefore challenges both the orders before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire enquiry has been conducted dehorse the provision contained under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules’). Learned counsel has taken this Court to Rule 17 of the Rules by submitting that a procedure has been laid down whereby the enquiry officer is required to conduct an enquiry based on the evidence which has been produced by both the parties. However, neither any oral nor documentary evidence was produced by the constitution and merely on the vigilance report whereby the petitioner was trapped for allegedly taking bribe, was produced by the presenting officer. It is submitted that the said document was also not proved by any person during the course of enquiry and the enquiry officer in a slipshod manner proceeded to prepare a format of enquiry report and held the petitioner guilty of the charges on the basis of the statement of the prosecution officer that all the allegations made against the petitioner stands proved as per the vigilance report. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case where no enquiry was conducted and, therefore, the order of dismissal deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that further that the appellate Court has also failed to take notice of the said aspects and has upheld the order of dismissal wrongfully.

2. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has been arrested in a trap conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities on 14.11.2017, he was suspended under the rules of the Rules on account of being in jail. Upon being released on bail, charge sheet was served upon him on 18.04.2018 while he was suspended again on 21st February, 2018. Enquiry was conducted and copy of the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner who submitted his reply and after considering the same the order was passed of dismissal which does not warrant any interference. Learned counsel submits that the appellate authority has also considered all the aspects and has rightly rejected the appeal.

3. I have considered the submissions.

4. The Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 lay down the procedure for conducting the enquiry for major penalty under Rule 17 of the Rules. Articles of charges shall be framed and delivered to the delinquent in terms of Rule 17(3) and (4) of the Rules. Upon receipt of such articles of charge/memorandum of charges, the delinquent is required to submit his reply/written statement. The enquiry officer shall be appointed. If the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the reply, the delinquent is thereupon required to appear in person before the enquiry authority and he may take assistance of any other Government servant to present his case. The enquiry authority is required to record the plea of guilt or not guilty in terms of Rule 17(9) of the Rules. As per Rules 17(11) of the Rules, if the Government servant refuses or omits to plead guilty, the enquiry officer is required to follow the procedure and it would be apposite to quote said procedure. Rule 17(11) to (21) is as under:—

17. Procedure for imposing major penalties.—

……….

(11) The inquiring authority shall, if the Government Servant fails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits to plead, require the Presenting Officer to produce the evidence by which