Departmental misconduct charges require proof via witness examination on preponderance of probability; unproved complaint/arrest documents insufficient, warranting quashing of dismissal, with criminal acquittal on same facts reinforcing interference.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner was an Upper Division Clerk in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Gogri, Khagaria. On the charge of misconduct, he was subjected to departmental enquiry and dismissed from service vide Memo No. 152, dated 20^th of March, 2015. The petitioner also filed a departmental appeal, which was also dismissed on 5^th of December, 2015. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the Respondent No. 3 vide order, dated 3^rd of October, 2024.

2. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders by filing the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. It is pertinent to mention that on the basis of a complaint, filed by one Aditya Kumar before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance on 15^th of April, 2014, a Vigilance Case No. 33 of 2014 was instituted and the petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance Department while accepting bribe from the complainant for discharging his official duties. On account of registration of a criminal case against the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was also initiated vide Memo No. 397, dated 26^th of July, 2014 and memorandum of charge was served against him on 13^th of August, 2014.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the departmental proceeding, the Presenting Officer failed to produce any witness against the petitioner. Though the memorandum of charge was not proved against him in accordance with the provisions contained in Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “CCA Rules” for short) as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 12^th of December, 2014, holding the petitioner guilty of the departmental charges. On the basis of such perfunctory enquiry report, the petitioner was directed to file second show-cause. He submitted his reply to the show-cause before the District Magistrate, Khagaria, but the District Magistrate vide his order, dated 20^th of March, 2015, dismissed the petitioner without adhering to the basic principles of departmental proceedings, contained in CCA Rules and the principles, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed a writ petition, bearing, C.W.J.C. No. 4380 of 2016 before this Court. By an order, dated 28^th of June, 2023, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed, on contest. The order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

5. The Respondent No. 3 again passed the similar order of dismissal of the petitioner from service without considering the fact that the order of dismissal was passed by the District Magistrate, Khagaria, though no charge was proved against him. The Presenting Officer failed to produce any witness in order to prove the alleged misconduct during enquiry proceeding. Only on the basis of a purported complaint and a charge-sheet, the petitioner was held guilty, which is against the provisions contained in CCA Rules.

6. The Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 have filed a counter affidavit, alleging all mate