IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the court should not interfere with the disciplinary authority's decision unless it lacks evidence or is wholly arbitrary and capricious.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

Prayers made

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 31.01.2019, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 20.05.2019 and revisional order dated 23.10.2019, whereby the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner have been rejected and the order of dismissal was affirmed.

Factual Matrix

3. The petitioner joined his service as Constable in CISF on 16.06.2007, he was initially posted at IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur, Asansol. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was posted at BCCL Dhanbad i.e. CISF Unit of BCCL, Dhanbad, he was put under suspension vide order dated 28.10.2018 on the allegation of dereliction of duties. Thereafter, on 10.11.2018, charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner seeking reply of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a detailed reply on 17.11.2018 denying all the charges levelled against him. However, being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and the Enquiry Officer, after hearing the parties and perusing the records submitted his reply holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, 2nd show-cause notice along with copy of enquiry report was issued to the petitioner and reply was sought for. Consequently, the petitioner filed his reply to the 2nd show-cause, however, being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, disciplinary authority vide his order dated 31.01.2019, dismissed the petitioner from services.

4. Against the order of dismissal the petitioner preferred Appeal but the appellate authority rejected the said appeal vide his order dated 20.05.2019 and affirmed the order of dismissal. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision on 25.07.2019 and the Revisional Authority vide his order dated 23.10.2019 rejected the claim of the petitioner and affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority.

Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner

5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously argues that the impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law since the charges leveled against the petitioner does not warrant order of dismissal from the service as neither the corruption has been proved whether bribe was taken or not nor the source of viral video was verified and only on the basis of the alleged viral video, enquiry office came to its finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. Learned counsel further argues that in the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority ignoring the relevant fact i.e. deposition of Khalasi and Owner of the Hotel as well as other persons, who deposed before the Enquiry Officer and only on the basis of surmises and conjectures and taking into consideration the irrelevant fact, passed the impugned orders, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that the Disciplinary Authority has not complied with Rule-19 of the CCA (CCA) Rules before passing the order of dismissal. Learned counsel further argues that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse, as the case is of no evidence. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents have failed to consider that petitioner has not taken bribe of Rs.100/-, as alleged in the charge-sheet since, who made the viral video, whether it is verified or not, nothing has been mentioned in the enquiry report. Learned counsel further argues that on the date of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was having Rs.50/- in his pocket and out of which he purchased breakfast of Rs.30/- and the Owner of the Mess has returned him Rs.20/-, which was lying in his pocket. Learned counsel further argues th