BASANT PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.02.2017, whereby and where under the Director-in-Chief (Adminstration), Health Services, Bihar, Patna has directed for forfeiting 100% pension of the petitioner for life.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was posted as Head Clerk in the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad and he is stated to have allegedly been caught by the flying squad of the District Anti corruption Committee, Aurangabad on 10.06.2007 with a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, said to be the bribe money received by the petitioner from one Pushpa Surin, A.N.M. in order to facilitate her transfer. Thereafter, a criminal case bearing Aurangabad Town PS case no. 131 of 2007 was instituted against the petitioner herein and the petitioner was taken into custody. A chargesheet dated 03.07.2007 was served upon the petitioner herein and an Inquiry Officer was appointed as well as the petitioner was directed to file his reply. The petitioner then filed his reply on 10.02.2014 before the Inquiry Officer denying all the charges leveled against him. The Inquiry Officer had submitted his inquiry report dated 13.02.2014 finding the charges to have been proved and also holding the petitioner guilty. In the meantime, the petitioner had retired on 28.02.2014, where after a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.05.2014, to which the petitioner had replied by his letter dated 24.05.2014 and then the impugned order dated 16.02.2017 has been passed by the Director-in-Chief (Administration), Health Services, Bihar, Patna, whereby and where under the punishment of withholding of 100% pension for life has been imposed on the petitioner herein.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is based upon the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer which is based on no evidence, inasmuch as neither the pre-trap witnesses nor the post-trap witnesses, who have alleged to have witnessed the petitioner accepting bribe from the complainant, have been examined during the course of departmental inquiry. In the inquiry report specially in the finding portion, the contents of the FIR of Aurangabad Town PS case no. 133 of 2007, has been re-stated, however the findings of the inquiry officer does not stand substantiated by any evidence. It has further been submitted that though the Inquiry Officer has stated that the complainant namely Pushpa Surin had submitted her written statement before the Inquiry Officer on 10.02.2014, however the petitioner herein has not been granted an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant.