The absence of evidence in disciplinary proceedings renders any punitive action unsustainable.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 03-12-2025

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

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

“(i) To issue an appropriate writ, preferably in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order no. 115/20-21 contained in memo no. 374 dated 05.03.2021 issued under the signature of District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram by which punishment withholding full pension and gratuity has been inflicted against the petitioner under Rule 43 (b)

of the Bihar Pension Rules .

(ii) To hold and declare that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 05.03.2021 for the alleged misconduct dated 05.05.2009 is barred by law in view of proviso (i) and (ii) to Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules , 1950.

(iii) To issue an appropriate writ preferably in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to pay full pension and Gratuity to the petitioner with suitable interest with effect from 01.05.2013 and (iv) To grant any other relief (s), for which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner while posted as Revenue Clerk in block- Kochas in the district of Rohtas, was made an accused in Vigilance P.S. Case no.47 of 2009 registered on 6.5.2009 under sections 7/13(2) read with section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 with the allegations of having been trapped while receiving a bribe of Rs.16,000/- from one Mahendra Singh. The petitioner, on account of being taken into custody in the said criminal case, was placed under suspension by order dated 2.7.2009 with effect from 5.5.2009. On his release from custody, the petitioner joined service on 22.8.2009. His suspension was revoked by order dated 16.10.2009 and his joining was accepted.

4. It further transpires that the petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2013.

5. On 31.12.2013, the petitioner was served with a memo of charge asking him to file his show-cause. The petitioner filed his reply on 29.1.2014. He was thereafter served with a supplementary show-cause notice on 29.1.2014 to which he submitted his reply on 12.3.2014.

6. It may be stated here that the charge against the petitioner in brief was that he had made a demand of illegal gratification for mutation of land. Not having been given the amount, the petitioner did not refer the application to the competent authority. Further, charge against the petitioner was that he was caught red handed by the vigilance team on 5.5.2009 at 12 noon taking a bribe which lead to the registration of Vigilance P.S. Case no.47/2009 on 6.5.2009 and for which the petitioner was sent to jail. On investigation in the said F.I.R., charge-sheet has been submitted by the Vigilance Department against the petitioner and sanction has been accorded by the District Magistrate to proceed in the criminal case against him.

7. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.2.2014. No copy of the enquiry report was served on the petitioner but by a memo dated 28.2.2014 the District Magistrate, informing the petitioner that enquiry report has been submitted directed him to file his reply.

The petitioner filed his reply on 12.3.2014.

8. The respondents came out with an order of punishment dated 28.3.2014 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate –cum– Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram forfeiting 100% pension as also the total amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner.

9. The petitioner challenged the order of punishm