BIBHUTI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing dismissal order dated 17.01.2012 and also appellate order dated 22.02.2014, whereby appeal preferred by the appellant has been rejected with further prayer to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts, in brief, is that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon in Civil Court on 30.05.200 While continuing as such, it was reported by one Haider Ali, that the petitioner accepted Rs. 14,000/- on 109.2007 for securing bail of his father, who was accused in Complaint Case No. 717 of 2003, pending in the Court of Sri V.C. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. On such complaint, as per direction of the then Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, the appellant was arraigned and on search Rs. 13,390/- was recovered from his possession. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which culminated in dismissal of the petitioner from services. Against which, the petitioner preferred appeal, which stood rejected vide order dated 202014.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that actual fact is that the petitioner had taken friendly loan from his relative to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- on the same day and he had his own saving of Rs. 3390/-, which he had to send to his native place. But, while he was counting the said amount, it was watched by the complainant. Taking advantage of this situation, when the bail petition of the father of the complainant was rejected, he became furious and made a false allegation that the petitioner had taken money for securing bail, but, on search, it is pertinent to note that only Rs. 13390/- was found in his possession. It has further been submitted that the specific stand taken by the petitioner that he is resident of Sitamarhi and due to heavy rain and flood in 2007, his native house was damaged and for repairing the same he had taken Rs. 10,000/- from one of his associates and rest Rs. 3000/- was his own money, which he had kept for making draft to send the same to his native place, has been disbelieved by the disciplinary authority without any rhyme and reason. It has further been submitted that during investigation, said Haider Ali was made accused as he tried to give bribe a judicial officer to secure bail. If it is so, then the petitioner has got no role in accepting the bribe.