JUDGMENT : 1. It is submitted by petitioners’ counsel that in the cause title description of P.S. has wrongly been mentioned as “Telhara” in place of “Teghra”. 2. Counsel for the petitioners’ is permitted to correct the said description during course of the day. 3. Heard Mr. Shambhu Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the respondent-State. 4. The original writ petitioner was functioning as a “Clerk” in the Office of District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai. The petitioner was arrested on the allegation of accepting a bribe of Rs. 2000/-(Two thousand) from the nominee of one of the retired employees. Allegation was that amount had been solicited for processing the claim for retiral dues benefits of the employee. 5. On basis of the said allegations, criminal proceedings in Begusarai Town P. S. Case No. 227 of 2005, was instituted which, later on, was handed over to the Vigilance Department. On the same set of charges, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner departmentally. 6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that from the very inception i.e., at the stage of issuance of charge memo dated 30.01.2014, the Authorities have committed lapses on account of which the entire proceedings, including the order of termination dated 02.04.2014, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, are unsustainable as being contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, ( For brevity “Bihar CCA Rules, 2005). 7. The petitioners’ counsel further highlighted that neither in the charge memo, nor before the Enquiry Officer, any evidence has been produced which can sustain the charges against the petitioner. Even the complainant Renu Sinha has not appeared in support of the charges against the petitioner in the enquiry. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Report did not conclude the charges to be proved. However, the Enquiry Officer, has proceeded to recommend the punishment of demotion against the petitioner and for keeping him away from important works. Such a recommendation of punishment by the Enquiry Officer is not contemplated under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Such action of the Enquiry Officer shows his predisposition. 8. It has further been submitted that that order of punishment dated 02.04.2014 manifests total non-application of mind. No reasons have been assigned in support of the conclusion. Such a recommendation of punishment by the Enquiry Officer is not contemplated under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Such action of the Enquiry Officer shows his predisposition. 8. It has further been submitted that that order of punishment dated 02.04.2014 manifests total non-application of mind. No reasons have been assigned in support of the conclusion. Abruptly, the Disciplinary Authority has issued the extreme punishment of termination without basing his conclusions on any material. The conclusions, contained in the order of punishment by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger, apart from being violation of the requirements contained in Rule 18 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, are also perverse. 9. Learned State Counsel submits that the order of punishment is product of procedure in accordance with Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The charge memo was issued. The matter was enquired into by the Enquiry Officer. After submission of Enquiry Report and after an opportunity of second Show-cause, order of punishment has been issued. The petitioner, having accepted bribe, is not entitled to any leniency. The procedural requirements having been complied the punishment does not warrant any interference in the instant proceedings. 10. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court would observe that before the Enquiry Officer it is apparent that other than some inter departmental communication and the fact that the petitioner was arrested in the criminal case, there is nothing on record to sustain the charges against the petitioner of soliciting or accepting bribe. None has appeared in support of the charges or to prove the documentary evidence brought on record. The Enquiry Officer has taken note of the fact that proceedings in the Criminal Trial are pending in the Court having taken note of such pendency, a conclusion has been recorded that conduct of the petitioner has been contrary to the provisions contained in Clause 3(I) of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976. The fact of the petitioner implication in criminal case, apparently, has weighed before the Enquiry Officer to arrive at such a conclusion and recommend that the petitioner be demoted and be kept away from important work. 11. The conclusions are not based on any evidence in course of enquiry. Clearly, it is a case of finding being based on no evidence. The conclusions are based on surmises and conjectures. 12. 11. The conclusions are not based on any evidence in course of enquiry. Clearly, it is a case of finding being based on no evidence. The conclusions are based on surmises and conjectures. 12. Apart from that this Court would also observe that the recommendation of punishment by the Enquiry Officer was wholly without jurisdiction. The role of the Enquiry Officer under Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 ends with submission of an Enquiry report. The Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 does not contemplate recommendation of a punishment by the Enquiry Officer. Clearly, the Enquiry Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction. Such overzealous approach by the Enquiry Officer gives rise to reasonable likelihood of his predisposition. The action of the Enquiry Officer are clearly unsustainable for want of fairness. 13. This Court would observe that the level of fairness and standard of integrity required from an Enquiry Officer performing a quasi judicial functioning is of a very high degree. This has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 . The actions of the Enquiry Officer do not manifest such a degree of fairness. 14. The Disciplinary Authority exercising jurisdiction after submission of the Enquiry Report also has proceeded contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 18 of Bihar CCA Rules. 2005. Taking note of the entire history with reference to the various dates of petitioner’s arrest, issuance of charge memo, submission of Enquiry Report, issuance of second Show-cause, and original writ petitioner's response, the Enquiry officer proceeds to conclude as follows:- **Jh pkS/kjh }kjk lefiZr f}rh; dkj.k i`PNk dk izR;qÙkj larks"kizn ugha jgus ds dkj.k bUgsa rRdky izHkko ls dk;kZyh; Kkikad 309 fnukad 20-03-2014 }kjk rRdky izHkko ls iqu% fuyafcr dj fn;k x;kA ekeys ds leh{kksijkar fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh& 2005 ds dafMdk 14 (x) ds rgr Jh cztuanu pkS/kjh] fyfid] ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh dk;kZy; eaqxsj dks lsok ls c[kkZLr fd;k tkrk gSA** 15. The order ex-facie is unsustainable. It manifests total non application of mind. The extreme punishment of termination is without any basis apart from the fact that the conclusions are not based on any evidence whatsoever. This Court would observe that the same is vitiated also for want of reasons in support of the order. The order ex-facie is unsustainable. It manifests total non application of mind. The extreme punishment of termination is without any basis apart from the fact that the conclusions are not based on any evidence whatsoever. This Court would observe that the same is vitiated also for want of reasons in support of the order. The requirements of assigning reasons has been reiterated by Courts. Such orders which do not assign reasons are clearly unsustainable. 16. Law in this regard has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court and circumstances requiring assigning of reasons has finally been enumerated in the judgment in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmad Khan & Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. 17. That apart since no witness has appeared in support of the any documents which were on the record, the order is unsustainable 18. On all these counts which have been taken note of hereinabove. The entire proceedings stand vitiated as being contrary to the requirements of procedural fairness, principles of natural justice as well as procedure prescribed under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The order of punishment dated 02.04.2014 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger (Respondent No.4) stands quashed. 19. Since the original writ petitioner has passed away during pendency of the instant proceedings and now it is the legal heirs, who are pursuing the instant case, this Court would only observe that the legal heirs would be entitled to all consequential benefits on account of quashing of the order of punishment as contained in Annexure6 to the writ petition. 20. The writ petition stand allowed to the extent indicated above.