Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural rules and principles of natural justice, including providing a show-cause notice and considering the Enquiry Officer's findings before imposing penalties.

JUDGMENT :

This Court has heard Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the office order, as contained in Memo No. 2623 dated 13.05.2014, issued by the Registrar, Co-Operative Societies-Cum-the Disciplinary Authority whereby, the petitioner has been dismissed from the services of the Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar. The petitioner also assailed the order dated 26.05.2015, as contained in Memo No. 1732 dated 03.05.2019 passed by the Principal Secretary-cum-the Appellate Authority, Co-operative Department, whereby the service appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal has also been rejected. The petitioner also questioned the legality of the memorandum of charge as well as a show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority with a further prayer to reinstate the petitioner in the services of the Co-operative Department, Government of Bihar with all consequential benefits.

3. The petitioner was posted as Lower Division Assistant in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sikrahna Anchal, Motihari. On 23.06.2011, one Surendra Sahni made a complaint before the Vigilance Department alleging demand of illegal gratification by the then District Co-operative Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. In the said complaint, it is alleged that the aforenoted District Co-operative Officer had instructed the complainant to contact this petitioner and one Mr. Hargun Prasad Singh, an Assistant in the office for getting the deal final.

4. The complainant, on the instruction, met the petitioner and Mr. Hargun Prasad Singh, who demanded Rs. 50,000/-. With the aforesaid allegation, a complaint was filed by the complainant; the Vigilance Department made verification and submitted its report on 29.06.2011. Based upon the verification report, the petitioner was trapped by the Vigilance Trap Team on 30.06.2011, leading to institution of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 041 of 2011, for the offences punishable under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. On account of the institution of the FIR and the petitioner being apprehended by the trap team, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 30.06.2011 vide Memo No. 3571 dated 02.08.2011. However, on being released from the judicial custody, the joining of the petitioner was accepted on 14.11.2011 and the suspension of the petitioner has been revoked vide Memo No. 3694 dated 17.07.2012 by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

6. Subsequent thereto, in contemplation of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was again placed under suspension and a memorandum of charge was framed against the petitioner on 08.08.2012. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sikrahana Anchal, Motihari was appointed as the Presenting Officer for conducting the departmental proceeding, in pursuant to Memo No. 4467 dated 29.08.2012.

7. In response to the memo of charge, the petitioner submitted his reply before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur on 03.10.2012 and denied all the charges. The Presenting Officer submitted written report before the Enquiry Officer vide Letter No. 514 dated 23.07.2013, and finally, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report vide Letter No. 136 dated 17.02.2014, with the findings that none of the charges, so levelled against the petitioner are proved.

8. On receipt of the enquiry report, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar issued second show-cause notice directing him as to why major punishment under Rule 14 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, “Rules, 2005”), be not inflicted upon him. The petitioner in response thereto, submitted a detail