Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.02.2014, passed by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara, i.e. the respondent no.5, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner has also challenged the Appellate Order dated 9.4.2021, passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, i.e. the respondent no. 4, whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected and has consequently prayed for reinstatement in service and grant of consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the District Collectorate, Bhojpur at Ara on 22.03.2005, whereafter he had joined the services and since then he has been working to the satisfaction of all concerned. Subsequently, the petitioner was made an accused in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 8 of 2010, on the allegation of accepting bribe of a sum of Rs. 2000/- and having been caught red handed, whereafter the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 31.03.2010 and then a departmental proceeding was initiated. The charges were framed in Prapatra (Ka) vide charge sheet dated 12.06.2010, which was also served on the petitioner, inter alia alleging therein that the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe to the tune of Rs. 2000/- on 01.02.2010, leading to filing of a Vigilance P.S. Case No. 8 of 2010. The petitioner had then filed his written statement, whereafter the Inquiry Officer had submitted the Inquiry Report dated 24.01.2014, finding the petitioner to be guilty of charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority had then, without issuing any second Show Cause Notice dismissed the petitioner from service by an order dated 03.02.2014, passed by the respondent no 5. The petitioner had then filed an appeal, however, the same has also stood dismissed by an order dated 09.04.2021, passed by the respondent no. 4.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted, by referring to the Inquiry Report dated 24.01.2014, that the same would depict that no evidence, whatsoever has been led by the prosecution to prove the charges and in fact not even a single witness has been examined, hence in absence of any evidence, the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in his Inquiry Report dated 24.01.2014 is perverse, hence on the basis of such perverse findings, based on no evidence, the respondent no. 5 could not have passed the order of dismissal from service dated 03.02.2014. It is next contended that the impugned order of punishment dated 03.02.2014, passed by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara is also an unreasoned order and does not spell out any reason, as to on what grounds the petitioner has been found to be guilty, so as to warrant his dismissal from service.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court as also by this Court:—

(i) (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank);

(ii) (2010)2 SCC 772 (State of U.P. and Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha);

(iii) 2000(3) PLJR 10 (Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar vs. B.S. Co-Opt Land Dev. Bank Ltd. & Ors.)

(iv) 2018(3) PLJR 329 (Anand Kumar vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.).

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that non issuance of 2nd Show Cause notice also amounts to denial of proper opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his defense to the proposed punishment, which the Disciplinary Authority has sought to inflict upon the petitioner, hence the same amounts to breach of the principles of natural justice and violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Reference in this connection has been made to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ECIL vs. B.Karunakar, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has though admitt