SHIWNANDAN SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Gazetted Government servant under the State of Bihar and at the relevant point of time, he was posted as Assistant Engineer, in the divisional office at Muzaffarpur of the department of Building Construction, when a raid was conducted on 11.07.2013 at his residence by the Economic Offences Wing of the State Government leading to registration of Economic Offences Police Station Case No. 28. of 2013. It was alleged against him in the criminal case that he had acquired property disproportionate to all known sources of his income which was punishable under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was put under suspension with effect from 11.07.2013, with the issuance of a notification to this effect on 25.07.2013.

(2.) It transpires that on the basis of a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Unit-3, Bihar, Patna, through his letter dated 11.09.2013 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, a Departmental Proceedings was initiated against the petitioner with the issuance of charge sheet on 22.10.2013. The said letter dated 11.09.2013 has been brought on record by way of Annexure-3 to the writ application. It is evident from Annexure-4, which is the charge sheet of the Departmental Enquiry initiated against the petitioner that the said letter dated 11.09.2013 was the basis for initiation of the Departmental Proceedings. On perusal of letter dated 11.09.2013, it can be easily seen that it did not contain a definite opinion that the petitioner had acquired property disproportionate to his known sources of income. The only opinion which was recorded in the letter dated 11.09.2013 was that the petitioner had failed to declare some of the properties, both, movable and immovable, belonging to him and his wife. It was alleged against the petitioner in the charge memo that defying the circulars issued by the General Administrative Department of the Government, the petitioner concealed some of the properties held by him and his wife, he failed to declare possession of such property. It was further alleged against him that he did not seek permission of the department to acquire such properties.

(3.) Before I proceed further, I must take note of an admitted fact, as coming from the bar that the criminal case lodged against the petitioner is still pending, though charge sheet has been submitted.