Disciplinary authorities must follow the established procedure of law and judicial pronouncements in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

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

2. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for the following reliefs:-

“A) For issuing appropriate writ including writ of certiorari and thereby quashing the order dated 15.11.2022 (Annexure-P/2) issued by Divisional Commissioner, Patna (Respondent no.3) whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal dated 14.12.2020 has been rejected.

B) For issuing appropriate writ including writ of certiorari and thereby quashing of the order dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-P/1) bearing Memo No.2047 issued by District Magistrate, Patna (Respondent no.4) whereby and whereunder the petitioner who was Revenue Officer under suspension, has been dismissed from the service from the date of issuance of the order.

C) For issuing appropriate writ including writ of certiorari and thereby quashing the 2nd enquiry report dated 04.03.2020 which has been furnished by the enquiry officer without there being any direction to such effect by the disciplinary authority.

D) For holding that the enquiry report given by the Conducting Officer cannot be based on the fact of arrest of the petitioner by the Vigilance Team to determine and prove the demand and acceptance of bribe to constitute the misconduct of the illegal gratification on the part of the petitioner.

E) For holding that the arrest of the petitioner by the trap team, FIR, Pre-Trap and Post-Trap Memo which are subject matter before the Vigilance Court cannot be in themselves evidence to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner.

F) For holding that the departmental authority i.e. Respondent No.4 without issuing memo of difference could not have issued 2nd show cause to the petitioner against whom the Enquiry Officer was unable to find any evidence towards the misconduct alleged in the memo of charge and recommendation was made by Enquiry Officer to keep the proceedings pending until disposal of the criminal/vigilance case.

G) For holding that without examining any witness much less the complainant it was illegal on the part of respondents to have concluded that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct of demanding and accepting bribe only because he was arrested by the Trap Team.

H) For holding that it was not open for the enquiry officer to have again formed and opinion without there being any remand of enquiry by the disciplinary authority.

I) For granting the petitioner the salary for the period 14.07.2017 to 14.12.2020 for which he was under suspension for which he was not even granted subsistence allowance.

J) The petitioner may also be granted all consequential benefits including the continuity of service, arrears and current salary and other emoluments admissible to the petitioner for period of his dismissal until his reinstatement.

K) The Hon’ble Court may pass any other order/orders which it may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and within the ends of equity, justice and good conscience.”

3. Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure ‘P/1’), the petitioner who was posted as Revenue Karmachari-cum-Incharge Circle Inspector in the Circle Office, Dulhin Bazar, Patna has been dismissed from service. It is further submitted that the service appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2022 (Annexure ‘P/2’).

4. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of a complaint submitted by one Anil Kumar before the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna on 11.07.2017, a trap was led and the petitioner was arrested on an allegation that he demanded the bribe and accepted the same on 14.07.2017.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner was served with a memo of charge in ‘Prapatra Ka’. It is stated in the memo o