A disciplinary enquiry must be based on evidence; mere allegations or FIR production without witness examination cannot substantiate a finding of guilt.

JUDGMENT :

K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.

The appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, appellant herein, which concluded with a punishment of dismissal. The appellant was working as a Headmaster in the Government Basic School, Sirisa Adda Compact, Ara Brindawan, West Champaran and was promoted as Block Education Officer in the month of August, 1996. While working as Block Education Officer, Pandarak, Patna, the appellant was issued with charges of dereliction of duty. After the initiation of departmental proceeding, the appellant was trapped by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau and caught taking Rs. 10,000/- as bribe from an Incharge Principal of Middle School, Sarhan. A separate charge-sheet was also served on him based on the trap case, on which an FIR was also registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was suspended, later that was revoked and then he was again placed on suspension with effect from 26.12.2016. The Regional Deputy Director of Education (RDDE) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. An enquiry report was submitted based on which, Annexure-P/17 order of dismissal was passed after giving an opportunity to the appellant, by way of a second show cause notice along with which the enquiry report was also annexed.

2. An appeal filed from the dismissal order also stood rejected as per Annexure-P/19. The appellant approached the learned Single Judge with the writ petition contending that there was absolutely no evidence led at the enquiry; wherein no witness was examined and merely based on surmises and conjectures, an enquiry report filed, dealing with only the last charge based on trap case and without any application of mind, the dismissal order was passed. The Appellate Authority also did not examine the matter in the context of the principles governing a disciplinary enquiry.

3. The learned Single Judge specifically noticed the charge-sheet, which contained altogether six charges relating to dereliction of duty and laid emphasis on the trap case. The learned Single Judge found that the Enqiury Officer has stated in the report that on examination of the evidence, it was apparent that the appellant had been arrested and remanded in jail for having taken bribe of Rs. 10,000/-. The statement of the Enquiry Officer that it was beyond the scope of enquiry to determine as to whether the allegation of taking bribe is proved or not, was noticed with approval. It was held that the contention of the appellant that the enquiry report only looked at the supplementary charge-sheet, was incorrect. It was held that the Enquiry Officer, after considering the charge-sheet, ‘in his own wisdom’ (sic), concluded that the charges are proved, after having considered the evidence which was brought before him.

4. Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 was specifically referred, to find that this Court would not sit in appeal over the findings of the Enquiry Officer as accepted by the disciplinary authority. The confined jurisdiction of the High Court, as noticed in the afore cited decision, was extracted to find that none of these grounds exist to interfere with the enquiry. It was held that admittedly, the petitioner was caught red handed taking the bribe and the allegation itself is sufficient to reach the conclusion, as arrived at by the Enquiry Officer.

5. The decision cited in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570 was distinguished on facts. It was reiterated with approval that the Enquiry Officer specifically observed that he was not examining the facts relating to the trap case, which is to be decided in the criminal case and the charge of ‘conduct unbecoming of a government servant’ and ‘violation of Rule 3 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976’, stood proved. The learned Single Judge observed that allegations of corruption, especially of demand of bribe followed up wi