IMPORTANT POINT
The dismissal of a government employee must be supported by evidence, and failure to examine witnesses in a departmental inquiry constitutes a violation of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for following reliefs:-

“i. The order dated 03.08.2016 passed the Principal Secretary Department of Industries be set-aside.

ii. The revisional order issued under Memo No.4067 Patna dated 20.07.2022 passed by the Principal Secretary Industry department, Bihar Patna be set-aside whereby and whereunder the revision petition dated 03.06.2022 filed by the Petitioner has been erroneously rejected.

iii. The Respondent authorities be directed to reinstate the Petitioner in his services with all consequential benefits.”

3. Facts of the case:-

By an order dated 4th December, 1995 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Extension Officer and joined at Headquarter, Palamu under the Industries Department, Government of Bihar. Subsequently, on 17th October 2012 on promotion the petitioner joined as Circle Officer in Roh Circle Office. On or about 15th October, 2014 one Rakesh Kumar made a false complaint against the petitioner alleging acceptance of illegal gratification by him. On receipt of such allegation Vigilance Investigation Bureau (hereinafter described as V.I.B.) constituted a trap and he was allegedly caught raid handed while accepting bribe of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner was arrested, a case being Vigilance Case No. 75 of 2014 under various penal provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the petitioner. The said case is under trial and the petitioner is duly contesting the said case. It is worthy to record the reference of the criminal case instituted against the petitioner, which is Roh P.S. Case No. 8 of 2006, Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 113 of 2007 and Nawada P.S. Case No. 681 of 2014. After being arrested, the petitioner was placed in suspension. Subsequently, he was released on bail and reinstated vide order dated 16th December, 2014. On the basis of the allegation made out in complaint submitted by the competent Officer of V.I.B., departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and on 19th February, 2015 he was served with the Memorandum of Charges under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Bihar. On 7th April, 2015 the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. Subsequently, departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 19th August, 2015 that the Department failed to examine even a single witness against the petitioner in order to prove the charges and he held that the charges framed against the petitioner had not been established as this was a case of no evidence. Subsequently, on 3rd August, 2016, the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner. The petitioner previously filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 18257 of 2016 challenging the order of dismissal passed against him by respondent no. 2, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing him to file a fresh revision before the competent authority vide order dated 11th May, 2022. The petitioner file a revision petition before the respondent no. 2 on 3rd June, 2022. However, vide order dated 20th September, 2022, the said revision was rejected in view of Rule 29 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter described as C.C.A. Rules).

4. Stand on the part of the State respondents:-

It is contended on behalf of the State respondents that the trap laid by the V.I.B., acceptance of bribe by the delinquent employee, recovery of bribe money from the possession of the delinquent employee and the complaint filed against him by the V.I.B. were placed before the appellate and revisional authority. The said documents by themselves are sufficient evidence against the petitioner and petitioner was dismis