Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.—Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner by this writ petition assails the order dated 18 February, 2014, whereby he has been dismissed from service and the order dated 17.04.2015 read with order dated 15.05.2015 whereby the appeal preferred against the dismissal order was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner. He further prays to be reinstated.

3. The brief fact which required to be noticed are that the petitioner was holding the post of Revenue Clerk on which he was appointed on 10.06.1997. While he was posted at Circle office, Chapra, he was arrested in a trap case, registered against him on 31.10.2007 by the Vigilance on the ground of demanding Rs.5,000/- from one Om Prakash Prasad for mutating his name in the revenue record. On 31.10.2007, he was suspended while in jail on 05.12.2007 and was released on 24.08.2008, his headquarters has been changed during suspension to Marhaura Sub-divisional Office and he therefore submitted his presence on 02.06.2008. A charge sheet was served upon him vide memo dated 19.08.2008 under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 2005, enquiry officer was appointed and presenting officer was also appointed to conduct the enquiry. The petitioner in reply to the charge sheet stated that the amount which was found from his possession was the rent the petitioner had collected from different land holders. During the pendency of the departmental enquiry, suspension was revoked on 26.08.2009.

4. The enquiry officer was informed by the presenting officer vide his letter dated 27.09.2012 that the charges were baseless as the application for mutation had been filed by the complainant much after the date of arrest. It was also asserted that the money collected from the petitioner was rent collected from other land holders. The enquiry officer thereafter changed vide order dated 18.10.2012 and then another enquiry officer was appointed on 26.06.2013.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer without recording any evidence of the witness or hearing the presenting officer and without giving any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses submitted his reported on 26.12.2013. Learned counsel has taken this Court to the enquiry report wherein the enquiry officer has noticed that the presenting officer himself neither produced any witness nor justified the charges against the petitioner. In his absence the enquiry officer himself has adopted a method of putting enquiry to the delinquent-petitioner and asking his reply with regard to each charge and proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of being negligent towards his duty and proposed punishment under Rule 14 of the Rules. Based on such enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service by the order dated 18.02.2013 which has been upheld by the appellate authority.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings dehors the provisions of the CCA Rules, 2005 of the procedure laid down therein. He submits that the enquiry officer in the present case himself conducted enquiry as a prosecutor and further proceeded to hold the charges as proved without exercising any reasons and without referring to any evidence. Learned counsel submits that the entire proceedings were perverse and arbitrary and the entire enquiry proceedings should be quashed. He relies on a judgments reported in (1985) 3 SCC 378 (Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer & Ors.), (1999) 2 SCC 10 (Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.), (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.), (2010) 2 SCC 772 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha) and (2018) 3 PLJR 969 [: 2018 (4) BLJ 251] (Prem Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) in support of his submissions.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the order and submits that the procedure has been followed.

Learned counsel submits that the enquiry officer has relied upon the reply filed by the petitioner-delinquent to reach to the conclusion. The discip