Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking quashing of the office order no. 554 dated 15.05.2014 contained in Memo No. 341 dated 15.04.2014 issued by the Deputy General Manager (DGM) (Human Resources and Administration), South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SBPDCL’) as contained in Annexure ‘1’ to the writ application by which the petitioner has been awarded the following punishment in the disciplinary proceeding conducted against him: –

(i) To completely withheld/deduct pension and gratuity;

(ii) To completely withheld/seize the leave encashment of the petitioner.

The disciplinary authority further directed that nothing will be payable to the petitioner except the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension.

An appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BSPHCL’) was dismissed vide Memo No. 295 dated 20.02.2015, hence the appellate order as contained in Annexure ‘2’ to the writ application is also under challenge.

Brief Facts of the Case

3. The petitioner was posted as Head Clerk, Electricity Division No. 1 at Gaya when a complaint was filed against him on 15.12.2018 by one Rakesh Pandey before the Director of Vigilance, Bihar State Electricity Board’s, Cell Vigilance Department, Patna. The complainant alleged that the petitioner was demanding illegal gratification of Rs.13000/- for giving electric connection for running flour mill of 8 HP motor, in addition to the actual fee amount, otherwise the complainant could not be given the electric connection. In view of the complaint received, the Vigilance Department organized a trap wherein on 18.12.2008 at about 13:30 hours, the Vigilance party caught the petitioner while accepting the bribe of Rs.13,000/- from the complainant. The petitioner was arrested, brought to Patna and he was sent to jail. A First Information Report giving rise to Vigilance Case No. 109 dated 19.12.2008 under Section 7/13 (2) read with 13 (1) (D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been lodged. The criminal case is still pending trial.

Initiation of Disciplinary Proceeding

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide Memo No. 06 dated 06.01.2009. He was served with a memo of charge. An inquiry was constituted. In the inquiry two witnesses, namely, (1) Shri Jitendra Jha, Inspector of Police, Vigilance Department Electricity Board Cell, Patna who was a member of the raiding party and (2) Shri Jyotimay Sarkar, Section Clerk, Electricity Circle of sub Division No. 1 appeared in support of the charge. The petitioner produced Sri Tapan Kumar Banerjee as a defence witness. On perusal of the evidences adduced in course of hearing, the Inquiry Officer observed that 12 witnesses were named in the memo of charge to support the charge but only two witnesses had appeared in support of the charge. The Inquiry Officer took a view that the evidence of Shri Jitendra Jha, Inspector of Police is not able to prove the charges beyond doubt because he has stated that no transaction of money had taken place in his presence. As regards the another witness, Shri Surendra Kumar Sinha, Dy.S.P., it is recorded that the said witness expressed his inability to give evidence because of the pendency of the criminal case in the court. The Inquiry Officer recorded that the complainant and the officers who are involved in verification and investigation have not appeared in support of the charges and in the light of the principles of natural justice, the charges would be proved only when the complainant, the Investigating Officer and the Verifying Officer give their evidence. With these observations, the Inquiry Officer took a view that the Depa