Madhuresh Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.

2. For passing of an order while working as a Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC) at the Collectorate, Samastipur, the petitioner has been proceeded against.

3. The brief background is that the petitioner joined at the said place of posting on 17-08-2015. He took up a dispute bearing Case No. 17 of 2015 wherein one, Amarnath Chaudhary was the complainant. The last date in the said proceedings, on which the matter was heard by the petitioner, is 17-12-2015. He has recorded an order that the parties were heard and the record was reserved for passing of orders. The complainant of the case approached the vigilance authorities with a complaint that the orders were not being passed by the petitioner for which he was demanding some illegal gratification.

4. The petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances was arrested in a trap case leading to lodging of vigilance P.S Case No. 14 of 2016 by the vigilance investigation department. He was arrested while allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant. He was taken into custody and after his release he has rejoined the department.

5. The District Magistrate, Samastipur under his communication dated 18-05-2016 communicated the charge-memo to the petitioner. The charge-memo contains two charges. The first charge is that the petitioner has committed an administrative lapse and negligence of his duty by not passing the order in the land dispute Case No. 17 of 2015. The second charge is that the petitioner was caught red handed while taking bribe from the complainant of the said case.

6. The charge memo contains a list of three documents based on which the department intended to bring home the charges. The order sheet of the complaint Case No. 17 of 2015 was one piece of evidence in support of the first charge. The second evidence was the written application filed by the complainant on 10.3.2015, based on which the case had been lodged. In support of the second charge, the authorities proposed to rely upon the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau dated 11.2.2016 and the FIR in Vigilance Case No. 14 of 2016.

7. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. The inquiry officer has returned a finding of charge No. 1 not being proved. Charge No. 2 has been found to be proved by the inquiry officer, but partially. Which part of charge No. 2 has been proved cannot be deciphered from the inquiry report.

8. Based on such inquiry report, the inquiry was concluded and petitioner was asked to submit his second showcause in response to the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority which he has submitted after following the procedure as prescribed under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.

9. The disciplinary authority has passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service by resolution dated 8.7.2019. The petitioner has preferred a review by way of memorial against the order of punishment, which also has been rejected by the competent authority under order dated 23-6-2020.

10. The submission of the petitioner's counsel is that the orders of punishment and the appellate authority are unsustainable in the eyes of the Law. The charge No. 2 is as a consequence and dependent upon charge No. 1. Both arise out of the same fact of the petitioner demanding illegal gratification for passing orders in the complaint case No. 17 of 2015, while he was posted as the LRDC at Samastipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding of the first charge not being proved and the second charge being proved is self-contradictory and perverse in itself. The sub-stratum of both the charges lies on the petitioner's demand for illegal gratification for passing orders in the case. It is thus beyond comprehension that one charge can be proved and the other not proved.

11. It is also submitted that in the inquiry, even the allegationist ha