- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2292/2002*, by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to dismiss the writ petition upholding the order passed by the Commissioner -cum -Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna, by which it was ordered that the petitioner, appellant herein, will not be entitled to receive the salary for the period ranging from 30.10.1999 to 8.12.1999, which was the period during which the appellant claimed to be in custody and it was further ordered that the said period will be treated as break in service and a further punishment of deduction of 10% of his pension with cumulative effect had been inflicted.
(2.) THIS order was passed after a departmental enquiry was held against the appellant in regard to three charges. The first and foremost charge against the appellant was that the appellant, who had been discharging duties as Inspector of Factories, was alleged to have indulged in accepting a bribe of Rs. 23,050/ - and the same was detected, when a raid was conducted in the factory premises. On account of this, a criminal case was lodged against the appellant by the competent authority and a vigilance case was also registered. However, the vigilance case was finally dropped as neither the informant, nor any witness in support of the prosecution version had turned up to support the case of the prosecution. Finally, the vigilance case was dropped against the appellant. A departmental proceeding had also been initiated by the respondents in regard to the charge of bribery levelled against the appellant and a memo of charge was issued to him incorporating three charges. In substance, the first and foremost charge levelled against the appellant is that in course of the raid, a sum of Rs. 23,050/ - was found in the drawer of the table on which the appellant was discharging duties and the same was inferred to be an amount accepted by the appellant as an amount towards bribery. The second charge that was levelled against the appellant was of dereliction in discharging his official duty and he continued working and drawing his entire salary, in spite of there being an order of suspension and the third charge that was levelled against the appellant was that after issuance of an order of suspension, although his headquarters was fixed at Ranchi, he failed to report at the headquarters so fixed and continued discharging duties at Dhanbad, which he was legally not entitled to do.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY a show cause notice was issued to the appellant and after completion of the due legal formalities, the delinquent appellant participated in the departmental proceeding and finally he was acquitted of the charge no. 1, by which he was alleged to have indulged in the offence of accepting an amount of Rs. 23,050/ - by way of bribe. In so far as the second and third charge, which can be clubbed together, are concerned, they were found to have been proved, as it was held in the departmental enquiry that the appellant, in spite of there being an order of suspension, continued to discharge duties at Dhanbad and defied the order of reporting duty at Ranchi, even after the order of suspension was issued. Consequently, after conclusion of the enquiry, the appellant although was acquitted of the charge of acceptance of bribe, punishment was imposed on him by -holding therein that he will not be entitled to salary for the period from 30.10.1999 to 8.12.1999, that is the period in which he was in custody and it was further held to be treated as break in service. Over and above, punishment of deduction of 10% of his pension with cumulative effect was also inflicted on him;