BIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed, in the present writ application filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, an order issued by Memo No. 1162 dtd. 30/9/2014 (Annexure-11) passed by the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, whereby he has been dismissed from service. His appeal against the order of dismissal has been rejected by the appellate authority by an order issued vide Memo No. 1160 dtd. 27/12/2016 (Annexure-13), which is also under challenge in the present application.

(2.) Briefly narrated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was posted as Block Education Officer, Tharthari in the district of Nalanda. A departmental proceeding was initiated against one Balwant Kumar, a Headmaster posted at Gauravchak Primary School, Ekangarsarai, in which the petitioner was appointed as an enquiring authority. The said Balwant Kumar made an application on 2/8/2013 before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, with an allegation that the petitioner was demanding bribe of Rs.10,000.00 for submitting a favourable report in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner submitted his enquiry report as an enquiring authority on 5/8/2013, holding the charges against the said Balwant Kumar (the complainant) proved. On the other hand, based on the complaint of the complainant, a trap was conducted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau on 8/8/2013 leading to the petitioner's arrest on the allegation of accepting bribe. A criminal case was accordingly registered as Vigilance PS. Case No. 47/2013 for the offences punishable under Sec. 7/13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was subsequently released on bail. During the pendency of the criminal case, the disciplinary authority decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the same allegation of the petitioner's conduct of having demanded and accepted bribe money from the complainant, which was the basisfor lodging of the First Information Report, as is evident from the charge-sheet in ' Prapatra-Ka ' (Annexure-6 to the writ application). An enquiring authority was appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry and a presenting officer was appointed to present the case of the department in the departmental enquiry. There are five charges framed in the charge memo, all of which relate to the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe. The charge memo did not contain any list of witnesses. A list of documents, on which the department intended to rely to establish the charges against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding, was supplied. Evidently, the complaint of the complainant, the order, whereby the petitioner was appointed as the enquiring authority in the departmental enquiry against the complainant, the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, for lodging of First Information Report, and a copy of the First Information Report, were the documents mentioned in the said list of documents. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the allegation before the enquiring authority on 9/4/2014. He asserted that he was not supplied all necessary documents for the purpose of submitting his effective defence. He further asserted that he was maliciously implicated at the instance of the complainant, who had reasons to believe that the petitioner was going to submit his report in the departmental proceeding against the complainant. He is said to have sought for adjournment before the enquiring authority on the ground of illness on 21/4/2014. On 21/4/2014 itself, the enquiring authority submitted his report, which is at Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The enquiring authority held all the charges against the petitioner to have been proved. A copy of the report of the enquiring authority was supplied to the petitioner through letter dtd. 30/5/2014 issued by the disciplinary authority seeking the petitioner's comments thereon. The petitioner submitted his comments asserting that the findings of the enquiring authority, being without any evidence, should not be accepted. The disciplinary authority, however, rejected the petitioner's representation against the report of the enquiring authority and agreeing with the report of the enquiring authority, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by the impugned order dtd. 30/9/2014. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, which has been dismissed by the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, by the impugned order dtd. 27/12/2016. The order of the appellate authority is also being assailed in this case.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar it has been asserted that as the petitioner was caught red handed while taking bribe, he does not deserve any relief in the present proceeding on any technical grounds. It has also been asserted that corruption in public life is the greatest hurdle in promotion of the ethos of the constitution and development of nation and a person involved in corruption does not deserve any leniency on technicalities.