An employee's dismissal based on inquiry findings must adhere to procedural fairness and sufficient evidence; failure to do so renders dismissal arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

Arvind Singh Chandel, J.

This petition has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 13.02.2020, Annexure-1 whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been dismissed from services, also under challenge is the order dated 24.03.2022 passed in Service Appeal No. 46 of 2020 by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Devendra Kumar gave an application for mutation and fixation of rent with respect to the landed property situated at Mauja Hanuman Nagar, in the district of Patna bearing Khata No. 22, Plot Nos. 63, 64 and 72, Area 11 dismill, 20 dismill and 26 dismill respectively. At that time the petitioner was posted as Revenue Clerk on 13.07.2016, he submitted his inspection report giving finding that the property is registered in the name of Birbal S/o Roopchand in the survey khatian, it was further reported by him that the said Devendra Kumar is in the possession of the property and steps can be taken for mutation. The C.O. sent the records to DCLR for further action and subsequently DCLR on 19.08.2016 allowed the claim of Devendra Kumar, then on 03.09.2016 the C.O. issued orders in favour of said Devendra Kumar. Subsequently, a claim was made by the Bihar State Electricity Board that the landed property which is mutated in the name of Devendra Kumar belongs to the electricity board where power substation exists. On the basis of said claim, three men committee was constituted for conducting an inquiry into the aforesaid mutation by the order of Commissioner. On 22.06.2017, the committee submitted its report, Annexure – 5, on the same day an FIR has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of said report of the committee. On 22.06.2017 a measurement report was also submitted by Anchal Amin, Patna Sadar recording a finding that the disputed property does not belong to the Power Substation. Subsequently, charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, four charges were levelled against him vide Annexure - 10. The inquiry officer submitted its enquiry report, Annexure – 13 charge nos. 1, 2 and 3 were found proved whereas charge no. 4 was not found proved. Subsequently, on the basis of said inquiry report second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which has been replied by him and vide order dated 13.02.2020 petitioner has been punished and his service has been dismissed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner is also rejected, hence this writ petition.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no list of witnesses was given along with the charge memo and no witnesses were examined by the inquiry officer during course of inquiry to prove the charges. There is no proof of the contention that the disputed land belongs to the Government of Bihar. In spite of that the inquiry officer wrongly arrived on the conclusion that the charge nos. 1, 2 and 3 levelled against the petitioner are duly proved. According to the counsel this is a case of no evidence, therefore, the finding as recorded by the inquiry officer is perverse and bad in law. He further submits that the presenting officer vide his opinion, Annexure – 12 himself admitted that the landed property is rightly recommended for mutation after fulfillment of the procedure. It was further opined by him that the petitioner has made recommendation in accordance with law and charges are not proved against him, even after that the inquiry officer found charges to be proved. It is further submitted by the counsel that the petitioner has merely made recommendation but the order of mutation was issued by the C.O. on the directions given by