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 appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer under order dated 29.01.2014 issued by Director, Integrated Child Development Services (for brevity, ICDS). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has appeared in the proceedings. The petitioner has also made a demand for certain documents in the proceedings and submitted his detailed written statement denying the charges and raising various infirmities in the charge memo issued to him. The Assistant Director, ICDS-cum-Enquiry Officer submitted Enquiry Report on 24.03.2014, that is on the same day when the petitioner has submitted his reply to the charge memo in light of the communication sent to him earlier.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the charge memo issued to the delinquent vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition, no list of evidence, documentary or oral, has been communicated to the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the charge memo has been issued in violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 17 (3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for brevity, Bihar CCA Rules, 2005). At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the provisions of Rule 17 (3) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Under the said Rules, the authorities are obliged to communicate the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour which shall contain statement of all relevant facts and list of documents and witnesses upon which the charges are proposed to be sustained in the proceedings. The list of documents or witnesses upon which the charges are to be sustained in the proceedings have not been communicated to the petitioner in the charge memo. The show cause which the petitioner has submitted on 24.03.2014 also contain his request for supplying the documents which he wanted to produce in his favour. However, without making available copy of any document or list of witness upon which the charges are proposed to be sustained in a proceeding. The Enquiry Officer has submitted an Enquiry Report holding the charge against the petitioner proved. The petitioner, thereafter, has been visited with the punishment of dismissal under Order dated 30.04.2014. The order of dismissal issued by the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.04.2014 records that second show cause was issued to the petitioner. The said fact is disputed by the petitioner in the instant proceedings as it is submitted that no second show cause was ever served upon the petitioner.

6. Be that as it may, the Enquiry Officer has not relied upon any evidence or witness while holding the charges proved against the petitioner and only a reference has been made to a pretrap memorandum, which was prepared prior to the petitioner’s arrest in the Vigilance Police Station Case No 009 of 2007 which by itself is not