Disciplinary dismissals must respect procedural fairness and natural justice, ensuring proper evidence is presented and that the accused has a fair opportunity to defend against alleged misconduct.

JUDGMENT

Date : 01-08-2025

This Court has heard Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Shashipriya, learned Advocate for the petitioner. The State is represented through Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned Advocate. Mr. Anil Singh, learned Advocate appears for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau.

2. The challenge made in the present writ petition is the order contained in Memo No. 5824 dated 10.10.2018 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2, the Joint Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The grievance has also been raised that the petitioner has not even been extended the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension for the period with effect from 25.04.2016 to 10.10.2018.

3. The factual matrix of the case as culled out from the materials on record reveals that the petitioner was duly appointed as an Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit with additional charge of District Programme Officer on 13.03.2014. While the petitioner was discharging the duty on the post afore noted, in the meanwhile, allegedly while accepting a bribe of Rs.50,000/- from one Bir Bahadur Singh, he was caught red handed, which led to institution of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 54 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7 /8/13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .

4. In the aforesaid premise, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau recommended for action against the petitioner under Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code; acting on the recommendation, the Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar vide Memo No. 3105 dated 13.07.2016 placed the petitioner under suspension. Subsequent thereto, a memo of charge was framed under Memo No. 301 dated 27.05.2017 alleging therein that the act of the petitioner of accepting bribe constitutes a grave misconduct under Rule 3(i) of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1976’). Explanation was sought for vide Memo No. 3180 dated 18.07.2017 under the signature of the respondent no. 2; the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and submitted a detailed explanation. In the meanwhile, another supplementary charge sheet vide Memo No. 4162 dated 06.09.2017 was served upon the petitioner and explanation was again sought for, the same was responded by the petitioner, denying all the allegations. Explanation of the petitioner did not find favour and finally the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Memo No. 4927 dated 18.10.2017. The Additional Secretary, Social Welfare Department was made the Enquiry Officer where the Assistant Direcor, Social Welfare Department as the Presenting Officer. The petitioner was served with the show cause along with memo of charge and the supporting documents and directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer.

5. The petitioner entered his appearance and submitted his written defence. It is categorically stated that he has been made a victim of conspiracy hatched by the complainant to take revenge for the show cause issued to his wife, Smt. Poonam Devi, who was found indulged in malpractices while running a Anganbadi Centre No. 55 at Village Katgharwan, Blok-Chausa, District Buxar. The enquiry was finally culminated into submission of the enquiry report to the Joint Secretary (Vigilance) Social Welfare Department. The Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of misconduct in terms with Section 3 of