RAMANAND YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) In this case, the petitioner is challenging the office order contained in Memo No. 2384 dated 29.7.2016 passed by the Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna affirming the office order contained in Memo No. 448 dated 25.1.2016, whereby and where under, the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna has inflicted punishment of removal from service as well as the relief has been sought for commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service along with full salary including consequential benefits.

(3.) The petitioner while he was posted as Junior Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division Manigachhi, Work Division Darbhanga-2, a trap was conducted on 18.11.2014, he was caught raid handed while taking bribe of Rs. 50,000/- which led to initiation of a Vigilance P.S. Case No. 85 of 2014, he was arrested and put behind the bar, subsequently, he was suspended from service on 19.12.2014 vide Memo No. 4677. After grant of bail and on release from jail on 27.1.2015, he gave his joining in the office of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Darbhanga-2 on 2.2.2015, whereafter, again he was placed under suspension vide office order dated 30.3.2015 contained in Memo No. 958 issued under the signature of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bihar under Rule 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 2005 (herein after to be referred to as 'Rule 2005'). Later on, vide Memo No. 1818 dated 25.5.2015, a decision was taken to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner in terms of Rule 14 and 17 of Rule 2005. The petitioner was served with Memo of Charge wherein an allegation was made which is basically about the incident of trap on account of having taken bribe of Rs. 50,000/-. It will be relevant herein to state that the Engineer-in-Chief was the Appointing cum Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, he himself has taken the burden of holding disciplinary enquiry, whereafter, the Engineer-in-Chief found that the charges were not proved against him and no action was taken against the petitioner. The matter was placed before the Secretary of the Department who was not happy with the findings recorded by the Engineer-in-Chief, the appointing authority, remanded back the matter, ultimately he came under the pressure of the higher authority and, ultimately, the Department issued second show-cause notice with the findings of proving the charge which the petitioner has replied and, ultimately, the punishment of dismissal from service has been passed by the Engineer-in-Chief and that has been affirmed by the appellate authority vide Memo No. 2384 dated 29.7.2016. The petitioner, thereafter, filed revision application which has been declared as not maintainable.