JUDGMENT :

ANSHUMAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

a) For quashing the notification dated 8.3.2021 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Bihar whereby and whereunder the review memorial preferred by the Petitioner (District Planning and Evaluation Officer, Darbhanga cum In charge Junior Plant Protection Officer, Dharbhanga) under the aegis of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Patna dated 27.8.2018 in C.W.J.C No. 5278/2015 against the order of dismissal dated 6.11.2014, was rejected thereby confirming the said order of dismissal.

b) For quashing the notification dated 6.11.2014 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Bihar whereby and whereunder the Petitioner was dismissed from service in view of the departmental proceedings conducted against him, in light of Rule 14 (xi) Bihar Government Servant Rules (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.

c) For grant of consequential reliefs, as the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2016.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned notifications dated 06.11.2014 and 08.03.2021 as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Bihar CCA Rules, 2005”) as well as the principles of natural justice.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Statistical Assistant in the year 1978 and, after completion of 30 years of service, was promoted to the post of District Planning and Evaluation Officer, Darbhanga under the District Agriculture Office. In the year 2010, he was also given additional charge of Junior Plant Protection Officer, Darbhanga. While functioning in the said capacity, a memo of charge dated 16.05.2011 was issued alleging that the petitioner was found present in Room No.104 of Arvind Hotel, Darbhanga, along with certain officials who were caught accepting bribe during a vigilance raid. Significantly, the charge did not allege that the petitioner himself demanded or accepted any bribe, nor was any bribe recovered from him. The allegation was founded merely on an inference of complicity arising out of his presence in the hotel room.

5. Learned counsel further submits that an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act was lodged against the petitioner, pursuant to which he was taken into custody and later released on bail. However, the departmental proceedings culminated in an enquiry report dated 11.01.2013, wherein the Enquiry Officer categorically hold that no bribe or money was recovered from the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer further noted that the recovery of an official camera from the petitioner corroborated his explanation that he had gone to the hotel to apprise his superior officers of the implementation of official programmes. While some suspicion was expressed regarding booking of a hotel room on a holiday, the Enquiry Officer simultaneously observed that the petitioner appeared to have acted under instructions of his superior officers.

6. Learned counsel further submits that despite the aforesaid findings, which do not establish any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer returned a vague and self-contradictory conclusion that the charge stood proved to the extent that the petitioner had allegedly assisted his superior officers in the act of bribery. This conclusion, it is urged, is wholly unsupported by evidence and travels beyond the charge framed against the petitioner, which never alleged facilitation or assistance in bribery.

7. Learned counsel emphatically submits that the departmental enquiry is vitiated as no oral or documentary evidence whatsoever was adduced by the department. No witnesses were examined, nor were any documents proved in accordance with law. The findings in the enquir