MUKESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) While the petitioner was posted as Sub Divisional Officer (for brevity, SDO) , Chanderdai in Irrigation Department in the district of Araria, a raid was conducted by the Economic Offences Uniit (for brevity, EOU) , Patna and the petitioner was made accused in First Information Report No 24 of 2013. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension on ground of the said FIR and a charge memo dated 06.09.2013 on Prapatra Ka was served on the petitioner for proceeding departmentally. The sole ground on which the charge memo is served is the institution of the FIR against the petitioner. An allegation was made that he had acquired assets worth Rs 98, 64, 000/- which was disproportionate to his known source of income. The only evidence, which is referred to in the charge memo on the basis of the charges sought to be established against the petitioner, was the FIR annexed along with the communication from the office of the Inspector General (for brevity, IG) , EOU. Other than the said communication, no other evidence has been referred to in the disciplinary proceeding, either documentary or oral. The petitioner, thereafter, made request for certain documents which had been seized by the EOU during the raid. Even though the documents were not made available, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he appeared before the enquiry officer for the first time on 16.12013.

(3.) Counsel for the State has submitted that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with procedure and adequate opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to submit the reply and after personal hearing, the impugned order was passed. However, with reference to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the counsel for the State is not in a position to point out as to whether any evidence, documentary or oral has been adduced before the enquiry officer.