Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including fair hearing and consideration of evidence; non-compliance renders dismissal orders unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

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

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To hold and declare that the 'Memo of Charge' as contained in Memo No. 71 dated 03.02.2014, (Annex-4) was supplied to the Petitioner, without there being any evidence in support of the charges, which renders the Memo of Charge violative of Rule 17 (3), 17 (4) R/W 17 (6) of the Bihar Govt. Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 2005, thus void ab-intio.

(ii) To hold and declare that, the Enquiry Report, (Annex-11) vide Letter No. 236 dated 24.04.2014 was submitted without conducting any enquiry in accordance with the Bihar Govt. Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 2005, and finding of the Enquiry Officer, whereby and where under the Petitioner has been held guilty of the charges, without considering any of the submissions of the Petitioner, by a cryptic and non-speaking statement, is arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide, and unsustainable in the eye of law.

(iii) To hold and declare that, the Order of Punishment (Dismissal from Service) as contained in Memo No. 201 dated 12.3.2018 {Ann-13) is a non-speaking order & also suffers from defect of non-consideration of submissions of the Petitioner. Since, the said order has not at all considered submissions of the Petitioner as contained in his reply to Show Cause Notices, hence said order of punishment, is in the teeth of the relevant provisions of Bihar Govt. Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 2005 & fit to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.

(iv) To hold and declare that, the order of the Reviewing Authority as contained in Memo No. 708 dated 01.10.2018, (Ann-15) whereby and where under the Review Application of the Petitioner has been rejected without applying independent judicious (quasi) judicial mind, only on the basis of conjecture and surmises, by a cryptic order, and, without taking into account the submissions in entirety, is bad in law hence fit to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.”

3. The brief facts of the case is that, while the petitioner was posted as Principal of the District Education & Training Institute, Madhepura at Madhepura, in an alleged trap case, on 16.07.2013, he was allegedly caught by a team of vigilance, while receiving a sum of Rs. 9000/-. For the said Trap Case, a F.I.R., bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 38 of 2013 dated 17.07.2013, was lodged against the petitioner, and he was put under custody. In consequential repercussions, he was placed under suspension, initially vide Memo No. 373 dated 06.08.2013 and, again on his release from custody, vide Memo No. 45 dated 24.01.2014, a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him and Memo of Charge 'Prapatra- Ka' was issued vide Memo No. 71 dated 03.02.2014. The documents annexed thereto, goes on to show that in support of the charge, a copy of the F.I.R. has been served upon the petitioner, though on the memo of charge, it has been mentioned that evidence consists total 18 eighteen pages but, actually the complete set of (so called) evidence were not served upon the Petitioner, even later on in-spite request to supply the same, which is in violation of Bihar State Government CCA Rules, 2005

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the said memo of charge/departmental proceeding, the Inquiry Officer vide his Letter No. 79 dated 11.02.2014, directed the petitioner to appear before him on 17.02.2014 along with the show cause reply (Spashtikaran). Since the Memo of Charge was not supplied to the petitioner by the said date (17.02.2014), upon seeking extension of time, finally, the petitioner filed his reply/written statement dated 25.02.2014, refuting/denying the allegations so leveled against him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in his written statement the petitioner has categorically stated that, the complainants, namely, Tarun Kumar and Ris