The absence of evidence and witness examination in departmental proceedings renders dismissal unsustainable, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarthy, J.

Heard Shri Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General-4 assisted by Shri Deepak Sahay Jamaur, learned AC to AAG-4 for the appellants- State of Bihar and Shri Akhilesh Dutta Verma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner- respondent.

Re: I.A. no. 1 of 2024.

2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants praying for condoning the delay of ten days in filing of the instant appeal.

3. The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the contents of the application, the Court is satisfied that the appellants have made out a case for condonation of delay. The delay is condoned and the appeal is treated to be within time.

5. I.A. no. 1 of 2024 stands allowed.

Re: LPA no. 770 of 2024.

6. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar against the judgment dated 21.6.2024 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside and quash the order of termination dated 21.9.2017 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also the order dated 9.3.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority with a further direction that the writ petitioner be reinstated with all back financial benefits and consequential reliefs.

7. The writ petitioner-respondent was initially appointed as a Block Statistical Supervisor under Block Chainpur in the District of Rohtas and presently in the District of Kaimur. On a complaint made by one Rambhu Jha on 14.11.2014 to the effect that a demand of Rs.5000/- as bribe money was being made by the writ petitioner for getting a piece of land mutated in the name of the complainant, a raid was conducted and the writ petitioner trapped along with one another who was caught with Rs.4000/-. The writ petitioner was taken into custody, a case instituted being Vigilance Case no. 93 of 2014 and on investigation, chargesheet submitted under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

8. The writ petitioner was also proceeded against departmentally under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (‘CCA Rules’ in short) wherein on being served with a show cause notice, the writ petitioner submitted his reply. On perusal of the writ petitioner’s reply, the District Statistical Officer-cum- Presenting Officer, Sitamarhi submitted his report dated 26.2.2016 concluding that no charge is proved against the writ petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, not taking into account the report submitted by the Presenting Officer, submitted his enquiry report dated 4.5.2016 finding the two charges to be proved against him. A second show cause notice dated 10.6.2016 was served on the writ petitioner to which he replied refuting the charges. The final order dated 21.9.2017 was passed in the departmental proceeding inflicting the punishment of dismissal from service. An appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 9.3.2021.

9. The writ petitioner preferred CWJC no. 8633 of 2021, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge who was pleased to quash the order of punishment dated 21.9.2017 of the Disciplinary Authority as also order dated 9.3.2021 of the Appellate Authority affirming the order of punishment. Direction was given for the writ petitioner to be reinstated back with all financial benefits. It is against this order that the instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar and its authorities.

10. It was submitted by learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants that the writ petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the bribe by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. Chargesheet has been submitted in the criminal case and sanction for prosecution has also been granted. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge having come to the conclusion that there was technical defect in conduct of the departmental proceeding, he ought to have remitted the matter bac