VIJENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter has been listed under the heading 'To Be Mentioned', it has been heard on merits, with consent of the parties as the pleadings are complete.

(2.) The petitioner has put to challenge the order, dated 07.08.2014, issued by the Directorate of Industries under the signature of Director, Industries, Government of Bihar, whereby punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed on him. The petitioner was working as Industry Extension Officer and was posted, at the relevant point of time, at Industry Center, Madhepura, when he was allegedly arrested by a team of Vigilance Investigation Bureau of the State, while accepting bribe of Rs.2,000.00. After his arrest, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him with the issuance of charge-sheet and appointment of an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. Following was the charge, framed against him :- ...[VARNACULAR TEXT UMITTED]...

(3.) It is evident from the charge-sheet that the charge, which was framed against him, was of having been arrested by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau in a trap laid by them while accepting gratification of a sum of Rs.2000/- from the husband of one Mrs. Punam Kumari for sending her loan application to the Main Branch, Madhepura, of Central Bank of India leading to registration of Vigilance P. S. Case No.105/07 for the offence punishable under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge, so framed against the petitioner, was denied by him in his written statement of defence stating that he was falsely and maliciously implicated in the criminal case for ulterior purpose.