IMPORTANT POINT
In disciplinary inquiries, the standard of proof requires more than mere suspicion; due process must be observed, including the right to cross-examine witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARTHY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:

“1. i) For quashing of the office order of the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna contained in memo no. 1131 dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure-10) issued under the signature of the Joint Director, Agriculture Ganana, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna, whereby and where under the revision filed against the order dated 29.07.2015 (annexure-9) passed in Service Appeal Case No. 246/2014 by the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna challenging the dismissal order contained in Memo No. 292 dated 31.01.2014 (annexure-8) of the respondent Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Nalanda has been rejected.

ii) For quashing of the order dated 29.07.2015 (annexure-9) passed in Service Appeal Case No. 246/2014 by the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna whereby the the dismissal order contained in Memo No. 292 dated 31.01.2014 (annexure-8) of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Nalanda has been rejected.

iii) For quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 292 dated 31.01.2014 (annexure-8) of the Collector -cum-District Magistrate, Nalanda whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been dismissed from service under Rule-14(xi) of Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and its amended Rules.

iv) For issuance of direction commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of dismissal with all the consequential benefits and back wages of the period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement.

v) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case for the meet of justice.”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that while he was at the relevant time posted as revenue clerk in Circle Hilsa in the district of Nalanda, the petitioner was caught taking bribe in a trap case for which Vigilance P.S. Case no. 7 of 2012 (Special Case no. 9 of 2012) was registered and he was taken into custody. The petitioner was subsequently enlarged on bail.

4. An inquiry was started against the petitioner for which memo of charge in prapatra ‘ka’ (Annexure-2) was served on him with the charge that on 25.1.2012 the petitioner, a Rajaswa Karamchari, was caught taking bribe of Rs.5,000/- and he was taken into custody by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. He was sent in judicial custody to the Adarsh Jail, Beur, Patna.

5. The petitioner filed his reply to the charges and the inquiry proceeded. The Enquiry Report dated 29.8.2012 (Annexure-5) was submitted by the Conducting Officer, a copy of which was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same.

6. The respondent authorities i.e. the District Magistrate, Nalanda came out with an order of punishment dated 31.1.2014 dismissing the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division on 29.7.2015 and the revision filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar by his order dated 14.10.2016.

7. It is submitted by Mr. Shrinandan Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that on perusal of the memo of charges in prapatra ‘ka’ brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ application, it would transpire that while the allegation is of the petitioner being caug