Madhuresh Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. The short submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Report, holding the charges communicated under charge memo on Prapatra “Ka” on 12.09.2007 to be proved, is without reference to any evidence. It is submitted that merely, by referring to a pre-trap memorandum, the petitioner has been held guilty in the proceedings. None has appeared to support the allegations or even the pre-trap memorandum, which has been referred to by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report dated 24.03.2014.

3. The brief background is for the period, during which the petitioner was posted as a Clerk, a charge memo was communicated to him on 12.09.2007. The allegation was that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification from Angan Bari Sevika for allowing payment of the honorarium due to her. Vigilance Police Station Case No 009 of 2007 was lodged on 19.01.2007 and the petitioner was taken into custody on the said allegations. After initiation of the proceedings, the same lingered for quite sometime.

4. Finally, the issue was once again revived by appoin