DILIP KUMAR PANDEY Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) On the allegation of demand of illegal gratification, the petitioner was arrested on 29.04.2009 while he was posted as a clerk in the office of Child Development Project Officer, Saraiya, Muzaffarpur. On the basis of the same allegation, he was served with the charge memo dated 17.01.2011 which is Annexure 5 of the writ petition. The petitioner submitted his reply and after conducting a proceeding an enquiry report was served to the petitioner by Annexure 8 dated 04.11.2011. The clear cut findings of the Enquiry officer were that the charges against the petitioner could not be established. That there was no evidence against the petitioner and since the criminal proceedings in the court below were pending, a conclusion in respect of petitioner's guilt or innocence could be arrived at only after conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

(3.) The Disciplinary authority has thereafter by Annexure 10 dated 10.02.2014 caused a de novo enquiry to be initiated against the petitioner in respect of the same charges. Pursuant thereto, the Enquiry officer has submitted a report dated 01.03.2014 (Annexure 12) in which the petitioner has been held guilty of misconduct under the Service rules. The petitioner objected to the procedure of the second show cause followed by the respondents as being contrary to the CCA Rules, in his reply which he filed on 10.04.2014. He has taken specific ground therein that under the Bihar CCA Rules under which the proceedings were conducted against the petitioner such de novo proceeding could not have been directed against the petitioner by the Disciplinary authority when the report to the Enquiry officer was in his favour. He has specifically averred in the second show cause reply that at best under Rule 18 "further enquiry" was permissible and no de novo enquiry could have been directed. He has further submitted that in the entire proceeding no oral or documentary material has been produced other than pre trap and post trap memorandum and as such the proceeding against the petitioner was vitiated. In view of the nature of the order this Court proposes to pass the matter is being left open to be looked into by the Disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary authority has passed the order dated 30.04.2014 dismissing the petitioner from service and directed that other than the subsistence allowance nothing be paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension during pendency of the enquiry. Said order which is Annexure 1 of the writ petition shows non consideration of the petitioner's points raised regarding such de novo enquiry being violative of the Bihar CCA Rules. Even the appellate authority who has consider the petitioner's appeal against the said order of dismissal has not considered the points raised by the petitioner regarding such de novo enquiry being violative of the CCA Rules, specifically Rule 18 thereof.