SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is yet another example, when the Court is constrained to interfere with the decision of the Government, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the allegation that he was arrested by the Vigilance sleuths, while accepting bribe, predominantly because of the profound failure on the part of the Department to adduce any evidence during the course of the departmental enquiry. The Court records, at the very outset, its displeasure for the grave lapse on the part of the respondents in pursuing a departmental action in accordance with the disciplinary Rules, despite seriousness of misconduct alleged, for which the petitioner was proceeded departmentally. The lapse, in my view, is ominous and speaks either of connivance or absence of training of personnel charged with the duties of holding/conducting a departmental enquiry/presenting a case against the delinquent on behalf of the department.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Sriram Krishna, learned A.C. to S.C.-11 representing the State. Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel has appeared with Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1, learned counsel, on behalf of the Bihar Public Service Commission.

(3.) The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrested by the personnel of Vigilance Investigation Bureau on the charge of accepting illegal gratification of a sum of Rs.10,000/-, leading to registration of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 69 of 2009 on 12.05.2009. Another Vigilance P.S. Case No.86 of 2009 was registered against him for having acquired assets, disproportionate to his all known sources of income, to the tune of Rs.75,53,981/-.