Harish Kumar, J.—This Court has heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr.Vipin Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Md. Harun Quareshi, learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 31.05.2022 contained in Memo No. 8580 whereby he has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service and also declared ineligible for any appointment in future with the State Government. The petitioner also assailed the appellate order, contained in Memo No. 17575 dated 27.09.2022 whereby the review petition preferred by the petitioner also came to be rejected.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition, as has been culled out from the materials available on record are summarized hereinbelow:

4. The petitioner on being declared successful in 39th Batch of the Bihar Public Service Commission had joined his services as Deputy Collector on 08.01.1996. While he was posted as Senior Deputy Collector, Kishanganj, a complaint was filed before the District Magistrate on 18.04.2014 by one Sri Rajiv Ranjan, the Executive Engineer (DRDA), Kishanganj with an allegation of demand of illegal gratification in the name of District Magistrate. To examine the veracity of the allegation, by the order of the District Magistrate, dated 21.04.2014, a Committee consisting of three officials was constituted. The Committee submitted its report on 28.06.2014 finding the allegation true. The aforesaid enquiry report is placed on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In the aforesaid premise, a Memorandum of charge containing in Prapatra “Ka” was duly served upon the petitioner vide letter dated 18.09.2015, issued under the signature of Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar. The petitioner was asked to submit his show-cause explanation. In response thereto he submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges attributed to him along with the other relevant facts on 04.01.2016. An opinion has also been sought for from the District Magistrate, Kishanganj, who submitted its opinion vide Letter No. 374 dated 19.02.2020 concurring with the finding of the District Public Grievances Redressal Officer, Kishanganj. It is pertinent to state here that the Additional Collector-cum- District Public Grievances Redressal Officer, Kishanganj had categorically opined by submitting its report vide letter no. 35 dated 17.02.2020 mentioning therein that the three members committee report suffers from inconsistency and contradiction. The allegation against the petitioner with regard to the corruption was not found true. Both the aforenoted letters are marked as annexure-5 Series.

5. Considering the facts, aforenoted, the Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar vide its Memo No. 5885 dated 19.06.2020 directed for a detailed enquiry under Rule 17(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2005”) and appointed the Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia as conducting officer whereas the Senior Officer nominated by the District Collector, Kishanganj, as Presenting Officer.

6. The petitioner submitted his explanation before the Conducting Officer on 04.08.2020 denying the charges, as leveled in the Memorandum of charge. On completion of the enquiry, the Commissioner-cum-Conducting Officer, Purnia Division, Purnia submitted its enquiry report on 25.05.2021; none of the charges were found proved against the petitioner. However, the Disciplinary Authority by differing with the findings of the Enquiry officer vide letter no. 7277 dated 19.07.2021 issued second show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his further explanation by referring to the reply upon his earlier show-cause explanation. On consideration of the enquiry report and the explanation of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority took a decision to dismiss the petitioner f