RANJAN PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.04.2014 contained in Annexure-12 to the petition, passed by the Director, Provident Fund Directorate whereby the petitioner has been served with a punishment of dismissal from service as also the order passed by the appellate authority dated 25.01.2016, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and affirming the order of the disciplinary authority (contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition).

(3.) The main ground of challenge to the aforesaid two orders is that the petitioner has been dismissed from service and appeal against the aforesaid order has also been rejected without the charges in the departmental proceeding having been proved against him; and that there is nothing in the enquiry report which would refer to any evidence with respect to demand of bribe money by the petitioner from the complainant. It has also been urged that in the absence of any witness having been examined by the department to prove the charge of demand of bribe and accepting the same the petitioner could not have been punished. The other ground of challenge is that charge no. 5 viz. of the petitioner having deliberately delayed the disposal of the file relating to the complainant is only by way of inference and such charge is the basis for accepting the other four charges against the petitioner of having demanded and accepted the bribe for doing an official work.