PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for quashing the Memo. No. 32 dated 03.01.2018, whereby and whereunder the State Government has taken a decision for giving the major penalty of dismissal from service to the petitioner herein.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that an FIR bearing Vigilance Case No. 097 of 2014 dated 09.12014 was registered under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation of the petitioner demanding bribe of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the daughter of the complainant of the said case. Subsequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner herein by Memo No. 9939 dated 011.2015 whereafter the petitioner had filed his reply dated 19.04.2016 before the Conducting Officer. The Enquiry Officer had submitted his enquiry report finding that charge no. 1, i.e. as to whether the bribe amount was demanded or not, was not proved but the Enquiry Officer found the charge nos. 2 and 3 regarding the petitioner having been caught red handed while taking a bribe of Rs. 20,000/- and recovery of money from him during the course of search, to have been proved. The petitioner was served with a copy of the Enquiry Report along with the second show cause notice dated 28.09.2016, asking the petitioner herein to submit his reply within 15 days. The petitioner had then submitted his reply to the second show cause notice on 21.10.2016 demanding certain documents. However, the disciplinary authority found the reply to the second show cause notice unsatisfactory and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was fit to be dismissed from service but since the petitioner had been appointed by the Bihar Public Service Commission, hence concurrence was sought from the B.P.S.C. and after the B.P.S.C. gave its concurrence, the final decision was taken for dismissing the petitioner from service and consequently by a resolution dated 03.01.2018 the competent authority has awarded the punishment of dismissal as against the petitioner herein.

(3.) The short issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the resolution dated 001.2018, by which the petitioner has been inflicted the punishment of dismissal is fit to be set aside on the sole ground that the disciplinary authority, while passing the punishment order of dismissal, has relied on extraneous materials and evidence which was never produced before the Enquiry Officer. In this regard, the learned counsel refers to paragraph no. 7 of the impugned order of punishment of dismissal dated 001.2018 whereby and whereunder the disciplinary authority has stated that upon consideration of the enquiry report, it has been found that the charges leveled on the petitioner herein have been found true on the basis of the statement/deposition of the Deputy Superintendent of Police-cum-In-charge of the raiding party, namely, Paras Nath Singh who has proved the pre trap memorandum and the post trap memorandum as also upon the facts stated therein but the fact is that the Enquiry Officer, in his enquiry report, to the contrary, has stated that none of the officials of the Vigilance Department appeared during the course of the enquiry whereas the witnesses produced on behalf of the defence have stated that the pre trap memorandum and post trap memorandum were not prepared at the place of occurrence by the Vigilance Department since no independent witnesses were present at the place of occurrence and the same was prepared subsequently.