Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated, 22.09.2015, contained in Memo No. 131 issued by the Director (Administration), Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services with immediate effect and a further direction has been issued for recovery of the price of 138 Sheesham trees worth about Rs. 7,50,869/-. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

2. I.A. No. 01 of 2024, which was allowed vide order, dated 08.02.2024, wherein, the additional prayer of the petitioner has been allowed for quashing of the Office Memo No. 3, dated 23.01.2024, Enquiry Report, dated 15.12.2014, Resolution No. 12, dated 31.03.2014, and Memo of Charge, dated 31.03.2024.

3. The case of the petitioner in the present writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as a Livestock Assistant on 08.11.1983 in the Cattle Farm, Pusa, under the Rajendra Agricultural University (in short “RAU”), and was subsequently promoted to the post of Field/Dairy Overseer vide Office Order, dated 21.01.2002.

4. The Cattle Farm is located on the bank of the river Gandak. On 16.07.2004, a devastating flood occurred in the Gandak river, as a consequence of which a substantial number of trees were uprooted and washed away from the farm premises. The petitioner promptly reported the loss of 138 Sheesham trees to the Superintendent, Cattle Farm, through a written report dated 27.09.2004, which was received by one Hari Lal Ram. The said report was accepted and no further action was taken at that stage.

5. The petitioner continued to serve without any blame and was transferred vide order, dated 10.08.2009, to the Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi, Muzaffarpur, where he formally handed over charge on 02.07.2011.

6. The controversy revived in the year 2012, when, vide letter, dated 24.02.2012, the petitioner’s last pay slip was withheld on the ground that he had not handed over charge of 140 Sheesham trees. Subsequently, vide letter, dated 02.06.2012, the petitioner was called upon to explain the alleged loss of the said trees. In response, he submitted his written explanation on 08.06.2012, clarifying that the loss had already been reported on 27.09.2004, reiterating that the trees had been washed away during the 2004 floods. He further stated that he has no responsibility for the loss, as chowkidars had specifically been deputed for the purpose of safeguarding the trees.

7. Despite his explanation, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Memo No. 110, dated 26.12.2012, alleging therein that on the basis of an Enquiry Committee’s findings no evidence of uprooting/loss of trees was found and that the trees appeared to have been illegally removed. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause on 12.01.2013 emphasizing the fact that the loss was reported contemporaneously in 2004, that the area was under floodwater for over a month, that senior officers had verified and accepted his report and that after eight years no meaningful physical verification could be carried out. He also pointed out that after the flood a protection dam was rebuilt in 2005, for which, soil was excavated from the forest area making it impossible to locate traces of the uprooted trees after such a long delay. The Superintendent himself had admitted deployment of watchmen in the area and no allegations were ever raised against him till 2012.

8. Notwithstanding the petitioner’s reply, the University, vide Resolution No. 12, dated 31.03.2014, initiated departmental proceedings in connection with the alleged loss of 138 Sheesham trees during the year 2004. The said resolution was passed not only against the petitioner but also against six other officers and employees of the University. Dr. M. K. Mallick, the Conducting Officer and Presenting Officer, namely, Dr. Pardeep Kumar Ram, were appointed an