ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner, in the present writ application, is questioning the order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority in Service Appeal No. 45/2017 whereby and whereunder the appellate authority has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner and refused to interfere with the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service as contained in Memo No. 2107 dated 04.11.2016 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Saran (Respondent no. 3).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested by a team of Vigilance Investigation Bureau while allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs. 2000/- from the complainant Sri Madan Mahto. A case being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 68/2009 dated 12.06.2009 under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was lodged against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel submits that later on a chargesheet in “Prapatra Ka” was served upon the petitioner. A copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure ‘3’ to the writ application.

5. Learned counsel submits that on service of charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply. After he was released on bail, his joining was accepted in the Department and the suspension order was revoked. The District Magistrate, Saran (respondent no.3), however, issued Memo No. 1969 on 18.11.2009, the same day, once again placing the petitioner under suspension under Rule 9(3)(2) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2005”).

6. Learned counsel submits that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Saran, Chapra was appointed as Inquiry Officer who submitted an inquiry report as contained in Annexure ‘7’ to the writ application.

7. It is submitted that on perusal of the inquiry report dated 22.11.2011 as contained in Annexure ‘7’ to the writ application, it would appear that the Inquiry Officer recorded his opinion as regards charge no. 3 that this charge is not proved. As regards charge no. 4, the Inquiry Officer reported that this charge is based on the report of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau and it would not be proper to furnish any opinion on this charge. Similar view was taken by him regarding charge no. 5 which was based on a post-trap memorandum prepared by the raiding team. Inquiry Officer reported that the charge no. 6 was not proved.

8. Learned counsel submits that on receipt of the inquiry report as contained in Annexure ‘7’ to the writ application, the then District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra decided to revoke the suspension of the petitioner and to keep the disciplinary proceeding pending till the decision of the court in the criminal case. The order of disciplinary authority is contained in memo no. 205 dated 13.02.2012 (Annexure ‘8’). Thereafter the petitioner was posted as Panchayat Sachiv.

9. Learned counsel submits that after about two years, the District Magistrate, Saran took a unilateral decision to place the petitioner once again under suspension and to appoint the District Transport Officer, Saran, Chapra as Inquiry Officer. This order is contained in Annexure ‘9’ to the writ application.

10. At this stage, it is submitted that the District Transport Officer proceeded to conduct the inquiry without following the established procedure of law. He submitted the report in a hurry to the disciplinary authority. No evidence was led before him. It is submitted that before the Inquiry Officer save and except the post-trap memorandum and the papers relating to the criminal case and the reply to the show cause of the petitioner, there was no other material.

11. It is submitted that even the presenting officer was not there before the Inquiry Officer. Yet he proceeded to submit a report dated 28.03.2014 as contained in Annexure ‘10’ to the writ application. Learned counsel has taken