Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—The petitioner is seeking quashing of a resolution issued vide Memo No. 243 dated 30.06.2015, by the Animal and Fisheries Resources Department, Government of Bihar under the signature of its Additional Secretary, whereby punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him, in exercise of power under Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 [for short BGS(CCA) Rules]. He had preferred a review application against the said resolution of the State Government before the competent authority, which was rejected, as communicated to him through letter dated 05.05.2016 (Annexure-38). The said decision communicated to the petitioner through letter dated 05.05.2016 has also been challenged in the present writ application filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India.

2. I have heard Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, learned GP-14 for the State of Bihar.

3. Briefly narrated, facts of the case are that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was posted as Block Veterinary Officer at Fatuha Block. An allegation was made by the Secretary of School Education Committee, Bali under Fatuha Block that the petitioner was demanding money to ensure that the said committee was not dissolved. On a complain made in this regard to the State Vigilance, a trap was laid by a vigilance team. Allegedly, the petitioner was arrested red-handed by the vigilance team while accepting bribe money from the complainant on 23.11.2006. This led to registration of FIR bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 82 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 12(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short PC Act). The petitioner was put under suspension because of his arrest in the criminal case. After he was released on bail, he was allowed to join his post. However, he was again placed under suspension by a separate order on the ground of pendency of the criminal case against him. A disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against him with the issuance of charge-sheet through Memo No. 76 dated 14.03.2008 (Annexure-7) with respect to the self-same allegation for which the criminal case was instituted. In the charge-sheet, a communication of the Vigilance Department dated 27.02.2008 was cited as the only evidence on which the charge of misconduct was based. No list of witness was attached/ supplied along with the charge-sheet. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within ten days.

4. Responding to the said communication, the petitioner outrightly denied the allegation of having demanded or accepted bribe from the complainant. He took a plea that the FIR registered by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau was the only evidence which was being cited to establish the charge against the petitioner, which did not have any evidentiary value. He also took a plea that it was not mentioned in the charge-sheet as to when the demand of bribe was made and as to when petitioner had accepted the bribe. He accordingly took a stand that the charge was vague and non-specific and, therefore, unsustainable. He asserted that he was maliciously implicated by way of a conspiracy, for ulterior reasons. Further, he requested supply of certain documents, which, according to him, were germane for preparation of effective explanation in his defence.

5. Responding to the petitioner’s request for supply of documents, the Department wrote a letter addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Cabinet Vigilance Department (Investigation Bureau) on 27.05.2008 requiring him to make available such relevant documents as were being demanded by the petitioner which were not available with the Department. From letter dated 27.05.2008, it appears that the Department was not of the view that the documents, which the petitioner was demanding, were irrelevant and not germane for preparation of effective defence. Subsequentl