JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

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

Brief Facts of the case

2. The petitioner is an accounts cadre employee of the Government of Bihar. He joined as Head Clerk in the Hazipur Jail in the month of July, 2018. While working as head clerk, he was also given charge of ‘Pravesh Sakha Prabhari’ (Entry Section In-charge) in the jail. It is stated that by order of the Superintendent, the petitioner was given duty to paste the notice containing list of inmates required to attend the trial court each day. A copy of the said notice/list was required to be given to ‘Bada Jamadar’ and the ‘Gate Warder’ posted at the Gate of the jail. It is the case of the petitioner that the ‘Bada Jamadar’ and the Gate Warder had duty under the supervision of the Assistant Superintendent or Deputy Superintendent to actually handover the inmates to district police for taking them to the trial court.

3. By placing letter dated 23.05.2008 (Annexure ‘1’) written by the Director (Administration), Home (Prison) Department, Govt. of Bihar, it is stated that the Department has earlier deprecated the approach of the Superintendent of the Divisional Prison, Ara to take work from the clerk in the ‘Pravesh Sakha’ of the jail even as the Assistant Superintendent is available in the jail.

4. It is stated that on 03.01.2020 an incidence took place inside the jail premises in which one inmate lodged in Hazipur Jail namely, Manish @ Telia was shot dead by another inmate lodged in the same jail namely, Raja Babu. A firm-arm weapon was used by the accused Raja Babu. An inquiry was conducted by a two Men Committee. In it’s report dated 07.01.2020 the said Committee found several deficiencies in the jail and suggested certain measures to remove those deficiencies. The Committee found that the fire-arm weapon would not have entered in the jail premises if the duties would have been performed diligently by the jail Warder/Dafa In-charge. The Committee found that the assailant was to be produced before the learned trial court on 03.01.2020 i.e. the date of occurrence, but he was not sent to the court. For this reason, the Committee inferred that the assailant was deliberately not sent to the learned court and in the view of the Committee, had the said assailant been sent to the learned court below on the fateful day then the said unfortunate incidence would not have taken place. The two Men Committee held the petitioner liable for not sending the said assailant in the trial court on the fateful day.

5. It is stated that vide Memo No. 143 dated 07.01.2020 the petitioner was placed under suspension which was later on revoked vide memo no. 3242 dated 28.05.2020. The petitioner was served with memo of charge vide letter no. 1215 dated 22.03.2020. There was a trivial alteration in the memo of charge vide letter no. 1478 dated 21.04.2020. Both the documents have been placed as Annexure ‘3’ and ‘3/1’ respectively to the writ application.

6. In the disciplinary proceeding the charges were proved against the petitioner, a copy of the inquiry report was served upon upon him and a second show cause was called for which was responded to, by the petitioner. Ultimately the petitioner was served with the order of punishment as contained in memo no. 5671 dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure ‘9’) whereby and whereby the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. An appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Prison) Department, Bihar vide Annexure ‘10’ to this writ application also failed and the dismissal of the appellate order has been communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 10951 dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure ‘11’).

Submission on behalf of the Petitioner

7. Mr. Siddharth Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders as contained in Annexure ‘9’ and ‘11’ respectively on various grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits