ASHOK PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) There are certain undisputed facts of this case. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as Upper Division Clerk and was posted as Nazir in the block office, Dalsinghsarai. A complaint was lodged by one Acharya Kritbodhanand against the petitioner alleging demand of bribe to the tune of Rs.76,000/- for clearing the final bill in connection with Kaushal Unnayan Prashikshan. This led to raid conducted by the Vigilance team on 13.11.2009. The petitioner was apprehended and subsequently an F.I.R. being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 112 of 2009 was instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 7/13(2) read with 13(1)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 14.11.2009. He was released on bail subsequently on 06.07.2011. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Samastipur -cum- the Disciplinary Authority, issued a chargesheet (Annexure- P/7) with the only charge that the petitioner had been arrested by the Vigilance team on the allegation of accepting bribe from an N.G.O. The said memo of charge did not contain any list of document or the witness on whose evidence the Department intended to establish the said misconduct against the petitioner.

(3.) By an order dated 16.07.2013, the order of suspension, which was earlier passed, was revoked under the orders of the District Magistrate, Samastipur. By a subsequent order dated 25.01.2014, the District Magistrate, Samastipur decided to place the petitioner under suspension again because of institution of criminal case against him. It transpires that the District Magistrate subsequently realized that the charge which was framed against him was not sufficient and therefore, he issued another chargesheet on 05.02.2014 giving in detail the circumstance in which the petitioner was apprehended by the Vigilance team while accepting the bribe. In the column of evidence, only document which was referred to in the charge memo was the action taken report of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Patna, containing 13 pages. The charge memo did not contain any list of witnesses. An Inquring Authority was appointed. A Presenting Officer was also appointed.