Harish Kumar, J.—This Court has heard Mr. Parijat Saurav, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Krityanand Jha, learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as contained in Memo No. 1042 dated 18.06.2014 issued by the Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 7466 dated 17.10.2019 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal, aforenoted, also came to be rejected. In sum and substance, the petitioner challenged the entire departmental proceeding, including the memo of charge as well as the enquiry report based upon which the order of dismissal has been passed.

3. The relevant necessary facts, as culled out from the materials available on record, are summarised hereinbelow:—

(i) The petitioner was duly appointed on compassionate ground on the post of Correspondence Clerk in the Minor Irrigation Division, Gaya. At the relevant time, while the petitioner was working on the said post on 24.12.2005, a complaint was lodged by one Amar Kumar Shrivastava alleging therein that there is a demand of illegal gratification on the part of the petitioner for movement of the file in relation to his appointment on compassionate ground. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the Vigilance Department constituted a trap team and apprehended the petitioner while accepting the bribe of Rs.2500/-, leading to institution of Vigilance P.S. case No. 18 of 2005 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was immediately sent to judicial custody and placed under suspension with effect from 29.12.2015.

(ii) Upon being released from the judicial custody, suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide Memo no. 468 dated 07.06.2006. On the said charge of accepting bribe and being apprehended by the Vigilance police, a memo of charge was duly framed vide Memo No. 883 dated 25.07.2006 and a show cause was issued to the petitioner to submit his reply. The petitioner immediately submitted his reply on 14.08.2006 and denied the allegation of demanding and accepting any bribe. The petitioner also requested the Conducting Officer to stay the further proceeding in the departmental proceeding till conclusion of the trial since the allegation in the departmental proceeding was mirror image of the allegation in the FIR of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 18 of 2005. The petitioner ensured his appearance in the departmental proceeding and submitted further reply with all his defence and contention that the memo of charge is defective, in as much as, it does not contain the list of witnesses and evidences; copies of such application have been placed on record as Annexures-4, 5 and 6 series.

(iii) After submission of the afore noted application/reply of the petitioner, there had not been any substantial progress in the departmental proceeding. However, in the year 2014, the departmental proceeding was again revived and the petitioner was again placed under suspension vide Memo No. 389 dated 22.02.2014 with immediate effect. The petitioner submitted his further reply on 20.03.2014 before the newly appointed Enquiry Officer and denied the charges levelled against him with further prayer to exonerate him in the departmental proceeding. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Gaya, who was the Enquiry Officer of the departmental proceeding, finally submitted his enquiry report contained in letter No. 325 dated 28.05.2014 holding the petitioner guilty of the charge; copy of which is marked as Annexure-12 to the writ petition.

(iv) The disciplinary authority, the Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, Patna vide its letter No. 916 dated 30.05.2014