Bibek Chaudhuri, J.—The petitioner was a Sub-Registrar attached to the Sub- Registry Office, Hilsa in the District of Nalanda. On the basis of a complaint filed by one Yogendra Yadav, before the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner had asked for bribe of Rs.10,000/- for registration of a piece of land, situated at village Madhobur within Police Station- Khodaganj, District- Nalanda, in the name of his brother-in-law Manoj Kumar and his wife. On the basis of said complaint a trap was laid and the petitioner was allegedly caught red handed while accepting bribe.

2. The petitioner was arrested and Vigilance P.S. Case No. 55 of 2014, under Section 7/8/13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against him on 26th August, 2014. As a result of arrest, the petitioner was suspended from his service. The Police Officer attached to Vigilance Investigation Bureau informed the matter to the higher Authority of the petitioner and on the basis of the said information a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. In the said departmental proceeding the petitioner was dismissed from his service. He preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal. The said Appeal was dismissed.

3. It is further contended by the petitioner that during the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3803 of 2013 on the ground that the disciplinary proceeding is bad in law in view of the fact that the Memorandum of Charge had not been issued by the appropriate Authority. The said writ petition was disposed off vide order dated 11th September, 2015 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, directing the respondents to initiate fresh departmental enquiry against the petitioner by appointing Departmental Inquiry Commissioner or Additional Inquiry Commissioner, instead of Officer of the Excise and Prohibition Department, who were made Inquiry Officer earlier.

4. As per the order of this Court in the above mentioned writ petition, fresh resolution for initiation of departmental proceeding was taken by respondent no. 3 and the Departmental Inquiry Commissioner, Bihar was made the Conducting Officer against the petitioner. The respondent no. 5 was again made the Presenting Officer in the departmental enquiry.

5. During departmental enquiry, the petitioner filed a representation on 3rd March, 2017, requesting the Inquiry Commissioner to supply relevant documents, which would be relied on by the Department during the enquiry. The Departmental Inquiry Commissioner directed the respondents to supply the documents, which the petitioner requested to him. He also requested the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau to supply the documents as requested by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 16th March, 2017, a list of documents was supplied to him. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau by his letter dated 11th April, 2017 refused to supply any documents stating, inter alia, that the Vigilance Investigation Bureau had supplied documents free of cost to the petitioner, as per requirement of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The enquiry was conducted by the Departmental Inquiry Commissioner, wherein it was pointed out by the petitioner that the registration of land in question was requested by one Baldeo Yadav as seller and two women namely Sulekha Devi and Rita Devi, who were the purchaser of the said land. Therefore, there was no connection between the petitioner and one Yogendra Yadav, who lodged complaint of demand of illegal gratification. The Inquiry Officer, on conclusion of enquiry held that the charge against the petitioner was proved. He submitted his report to the Principal Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, Government of Bihar. However, vide order dated 10th August, 2020, the Joint Secretary of the Department issued the order of dismissal against the petitioner.

6. It is alleged that the