JUDGMENT : (HARISH KUMAR, J. ) This Court has heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhanshu Bhushan, learned Advocate for the State. 2. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the enquiry report dated 10.03.2014 and the order of punishment as contained in Memo No. 34 dated 20.05.2014, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 20.12.2019 passed in Service Appeal Case No. 86/2019 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to be rejected by affirming the order of punishment. 3. An Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2024 has also been filed assailing the memo of charge as well as supplementary memo of charge on account of the fact that the same being in the teeth of Rule 17(3)(ii) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 2005’). 4. The facts of the case as culled out from the materials available on record are summarized hereinbelow: (i) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in Block-Rajapakar, District Vaishali in the year 1984. While he was posted as Upper Division Clerk in the District Land Acquisition Office, Vaishali on 12.01.2007, he was apprehended by a trap team duly constituted by the Vigilance Department while accepting a bribe of Rs. 500/-. This led to institution of the FIR being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 4/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevenetion of Corruption Act, 1988. In the aforesaid premise, a memo of charge in the form of prapatra (ka) was issued vide letter dated 01.10.2007, however the departmental proceeding could not proceed and subsequently a supplementary memo of charge was issued vide memo No. 68 dated 20.01.2014. (ii) The petitioner was placed under suspension and the Block Development Officer was appointed as Presenting Officer whereas the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Mahua as the Conducting Officer. The petitioner, in response to the memo of charge, entered his appearance in the departmental enquiry and submitted his defence statement. (ii) The petitioner was placed under suspension and the Block Development Officer was appointed as Presenting Officer whereas the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Mahua as the Conducting Officer. The petitioner, in response to the memo of charge, entered his appearance in the departmental enquiry and submitted his defence statement. Upon submission of the written report by the Presenting Officer on 10.03.2014, the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted its enquiry report on 10.03.2014 itself, copy of which is marked as Anneuxre-3 to the writ petition. On receipt of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice to the petitioner and asked him to submit his reply. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply, copy of which is marked as Anneuxre-4 to the writ petition. Finally the disciplinary authority vide Memo No. 34 dated 20.05.2014 passed the impugned order inflicting punishment of dismissal from services. (iii) The petitioner on being aggrieved preferred CWJC No. 11635 of 2014 which came to be dismissed on 11.02.2019 with a liberty to avail the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority. In pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur bearing Appeal No. 86/2019 which was finally heard and dismissed on 20.12.2019. Both the impugned orders as well as the memo of charges and the enquiry report are put to challenge before this Court. 5. While assailing the impugned orders, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is the fact that the Presenting Officer remained absent during the entire departmental proceeding and for the first time he submitted his opinion to the conducting Officer on 10.03.2014 and on the same day, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report which clearly shows the biasness and premeditated approach of the Conducting Officer. On drawing the attention of this Court to the memo of charge as well as supplementary memo of charge, it is further contended that the respondent authorities have not tendered the list of witnesses in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 17(3) (ii) of the Rules, 2005. It is also the contention of the petitioner that save and except the FIR there is no distinct article of charge describing substance of imputation of conduct or misbehavior. The charges alleged against the petitioner is apparently not definite and distinct. It is also the contention of the petitioner that save and except the FIR there is no distinct article of charge describing substance of imputation of conduct or misbehavior. The charges alleged against the petitioner is apparently not definite and distinct. The mandatory prescriptions of Rules, 2005 has not been adhered to by the Conducting Officer as well as the disciplinary authority on arriving at a conclusion to prove the charges and inflicting severest punishment of dismissal. The present case is a case of no evidence. Even though the strict standard of proof is not applicable to a departmental preceding and charges are to be established on the preponderance of probability but it is essential to mention that there has to be some cogent and reliable material in support of the charges. The same is lacking in the presnt case, is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court to the enquiry report, copy of which is marked as Anneuxre-2 to the writ petition and contended that the complainant was examined by the Conducting Officer and he has categorically denied the allegation of bribe or payment of any gratification to the petitioner. Despite the aforesaid fact, the Enquiry Officer placing reliance upon the FIR that the petitioner being apprehended by the Trap Team it was found that the charges levelled against the petitioner are true and submitted his report. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Madan Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. , CWJC No. 18566 of 2018, disposed off on 26.02.2020. Further reliance has been placed on a decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Lagan Ram vs. The State of Bihar & Ors . in LPA No. 389 of 2024, disposed off on 06.08.2024. 7. Referring to the decisions aforenoted, learned Advocate for the petitioner thus contended that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated only on the basis of vigilance case. Moreover, the criminal case is still pending. in LPA No. 389 of 2024, disposed off on 06.08.2024. 7. Referring to the decisions aforenoted, learned Advocate for the petitioner thus contended that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated only on the basis of vigilance case. Moreover, the criminal case is still pending. Since, the charge levelled against the petitioner is in relation to Vigilance Trap, it was incumbent upon the respondents to adduce evidence to establish the allegation of taking bribe, which was the basic charge levelled against the petitioner but no such witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding and simply because the FIR was lodged against the petitioner, the respondents proceeded and punished the petitioner. It is lastly contended that the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which influence the finding. The disciplinary authority is mandatorily required to arrive at a reasonable finding, which has not been done in the present case is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 8. To controvert the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, learned Advocate for the State referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit has contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner are very serious in nature, which led to institution of the FIR and simultaneously departmental proceeding. The Presenting Officer-cum-Block Development Officer submitted his written opinion to the Conducting Officer, whereupon the Conducting Officer after taking note of the explanation of the petitioner as well as the opinion of the Presenting Officer has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled in the prapatra (ka) stands proved. In the aforesaid premise, the Conducting Officer recommended for taking action against the petitioner under the appropriate provisions of Rules, 2005. On receipt of the enquiry report, the District Magistrate, Vaishali issued second show-cause notice to the petitioner, which finally culminated into punishment of dismissal from service. The said order of dismissal was put to challenge before this Court in CWJC No. 11635 of 2014, which came to be dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. The service appeal preferred by the petitioner was also heard and rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.12.2019. 9. It is respectfully submitted that the entire departmental proceeding has been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rules, 2005. The service appeal preferred by the petitioner was also heard and rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.12.2019. 9. It is respectfully submitted that the entire departmental proceeding has been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rules, 2005. The allegation levelled against the petitioner for demanding bribe has been verified by Vigilance Department and during the trap, he was caught red handed while taking bribe. During the course of departmental proceeding, the complainant was also examined and on perusal of charges, evidence and reply of the petitioner, the Conducting Officer has arrived at conclusion that the allegation of taking bribe is found true. The disciplinary authority has given ample opportunity to the petitioner, before passing the impugned order of dismissal, which order has also been affirmed by the appellate authority. In the aforesaid premise, the learned Advocate for the State prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Advocate for the respective parties and also meticulously perused the materials available on record. Before parting with this case, it would be relevant to highlight the requisite prescriptions of the Rules, 2005, which governs the process to conduct the departmental proceeding. Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005 prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. Rule 17 (3) (i)(ii) states that there must be definite and distinct article of charge. The statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge shall contain a list of such document by which, and a list of such witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. In the case in hand, the memo of charge and the supplementary memo of charge contain only the copy of the FIR of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 04/2007 and the letter dated 15.01.2014 issued from the Block Office. There is no list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained; notwithstanding, the categorical prescription under Rule mentioned hereinabove. 11. Rule 17 (4) of the Rules, 2005 mandates the disciplinary authority to issue a show-cause on the charge memo from the delinquent, who in turn required to submit a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. 11. Rule 17 (4) of the Rules, 2005 mandates the disciplinary authority to issue a show-cause on the charge memo from the delinquent, who in turn required to submit a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. On receipt of such written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority either may enquire into such article of charge, which are not admitted or if it thinks necessary to appoint an enquiry authority. Rule 17 (5) (c) obligates the disciplinary authority to appoint a Presenting Officer to present on his behalf the case, in support of the article of charge. 12. In the case in hand, after submission of the explanation by the petitioner, no such hearing was provided nor such decision taken. This Court has gone through the enquiry report, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. There is no discussion of oral and documentary evidence, on the basis of which the articles of charges were proved, except the FIR. Though the enquiry report demonstrate that the opinion of the Presenting Officer has been obtained, but that is nothing except the narration of the fact. It is noteworty that the Presenting Officer has submitted his opinion in Letter No. 400 (A) dated 10.03.2014 and on the same date, the Enquiry Officer has completed the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report. Though the prescription provided under Rule 17 (14) mandates that on the date fixed for enquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the Government Servant. The procedure aforenoted has been given a complete go-by. 13. This Court in the case of Panchanan Kumar Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors., (1996) 1 PLJR 401 in identical facts where the Presenting Officer was appointed, but he failed to appear and his role was assumed by the Enquiry Officer, in such circumstances, observed that there is no explanation why the said Presenting Officer did not appear before the Enquiry Officer to present the case of the department. The action of the Enquiry Officer to present the case himself on behalf of the department and also to take upon himself the duty of inquiring the correctness or otherwise of the said case clearly shows that the Enquiry Officer, in the instant case, has failed to discharge his duty as a fair and impartial enquiry authority. He has rolled up within himself the role of both the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer and, as such, has acted in a manner, which is not consistent with the principles of natural justice. 14. The enquiry report further demonstrate that the complainant physically appeared in the departmental proceeding and has given a written statement, which has been incorporated in the enquiry report itself. 14. The enquiry report further demonstrate that the complainant physically appeared in the departmental proceeding and has given a written statement, which has been incorporated in the enquiry report itself. To appreciate the issue involved in the present writ petition, this Court also deems it proper to incorporate the written statement, hereinbelow: ifjoknh Jh f'kopUnz jk; us fnukad& 19-02-14 dks mifLFkr gksdj eks0 eqLrkd ds fo:) yxk, x, vkjksi ds ckjs esa viuk i{k fyf[kr :i esa j[kk] tks fuEuor~ gS& 1- vkidk uke D;k gS ,oa firk dk uke D;k gS\ & f'kopUnz jk;] firk& dey jk;] xzke$iks0$Fkkuk& jktkikdj 2- D;k vki iz[kMa ukthj eks0 eqLrkd ds fo:) ?kql ekaxus dk vkjksi fuxjkuh foHkkx dks fd;k Fkk\ & dqy yksxksa ds cgdkoas esa vkdj fd;k FkkA 3- D;k vkids lkeus lR;kiu drkZ }kjk ?kql ekWxus dh tkap dh x;h Fkh\ & ugha dh x;h FkhA 4- D;k vkius eks0 eqLrkd] rRdkyhu ukthj] iz[kaM jktkikdj dks ?kql ds :i esa eks0 & 500 ¼ikap lkS½ :i;s fn, Fks\ & ugha fn;k FkkA 5- D;k eks0 eqLrkd] rRdkyhu iz[kaM ukthj us psd nsrs le; ?kql ds :i esa eks0&500¼ikap lkS½ :Ik;s ekaxk Fkk rFkk vkius 500 ¼ikap lkS½ fn;k Fkk\ &buds }kjk dksbZ ?kql dh ekax ugha dh x;h Fkh vkSj u gh esjs }kjk budks dksbZ ?kql dh jkf'k nh x;h FkhA 6- D;k vkids lkeus Jh eks0 eqLrkd dh ryk'kh yh x;h Fkh\ & esjs lkeus dksbZ ryk'kh ugha yh x;h FkhA 7- D;k vkids lkeus fuxjkuh ds /kkok ny ds izHkkjh ds }kjk Xykl eaxkdj gkFk /kqyokus dh izfdz;k fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk Xykl esa gkFk /kqyok;k x;k Fkk vkSj gkFk /kqyokus ds i'pkr~ ikuh dk Xykl xqykch gks x;k Fkk\ & ugha esjs lkeus dksbZ dkjZokbZ ugha dh x;h FkhA 8- D;k vkjksi ds laca/k esa dqN dguk pkgrs gS\ & eks0 eqLrkd] rRdkyhu ukthj }kjk psd ysus ds fy, eks& 500¼ikap lkS½ :i;s ?kql dh jkf'k ugha ekaxk x;k Fkk rFkk esjs }kjk ?kql dh jkf'k ukthj ckcw dks ugha fn;k FkkA bUgsa fuxjkuh foHkkx }kjk tcjnLrh fxjQ~rkj dj fy;k x;k FkkA ¼lqyHk ladr gsrq c;ku dh Nk;kizfr layXu½ 15. Bare reading of the written statement of the complainant, there is complete denial of any allegation of demand of bribe or payment of any kind of gratification. Bare reading of the written statement of the complainant, there is complete denial of any allegation of demand of bribe or payment of any kind of gratification. The complainant has not at all supported the allegation levelled in the FIR, which has made the very basis of the departmental enquiry and for the Enquiry Officer to arrive at the conclusion that the charges stand proved. The complainant, who appeared as a witness for the department, denied having made any bribe to the petitioner. The party to the pre and post trap memorandum has not been produced by the department. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the allegation of the complainant could not have been proved; as such, there was absolutely no evidence to support the charge, framed against the petitioner and thus, the entire findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are vitiated for the simple reason of not being supported by any evidence on record and are wholly perverse. 16. Suffice it to observe that the Enquiry Officer/Conducting Officer acting in quasi-judicial authority, is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be representative of department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine evidence presented by Department, even in absence of delinquent official to see as to whether unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that charges are proved. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 while highlighting the duty and status of the Enquiry Officer has also observed that in order to prove the contents of the documents, oral evidence is required to be led by the department. It would be apt to encapsulate the relevant paragraph of the aforenoted decision, which are reproduced hereinabove: “28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.” 17. Well settled it is that mere production of a document is not enough and the contents of the documentary evidence is to be proved by examining witnesses. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision rendered in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570 held in clear terms that FIR in itself is not an evidence without actual proof of facts stated therein. It would be prudent to encapsulate paragraph 14 of the said decision. “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.” 18. The FIR and the materials collected by the police in criminal case, in course of investigation, has not been proved by the department. The disciplinary authority without having recording its finding on all or any of the articles of charge and without having regard to the basis of evidence adduced during the enquiry, has mechanically and illegally passed an order imposing penalty, which in the opinion of this Court is unsustainable for the reason of non-compliance of inter alia Rule 18 (4) of Rules, 2005, which casts a duty on the disciplinary authority to apply his mind. The written defence statement of the delinquent ought to be considered by the disciplinary authority; in the case in hand, the order imposing punishment of dismissal from services does not contain any reason as to why the written defence statement of the petitioner to the memo of charge or the second show-cause notice was not found acceptable. The disciplinary authority has failed to record his finding on the article of charge and on the basis of document adduced during the enquiry. Rule 18 (6) of the Rules, 2005 mandates the disciplinary authority to arrive at findings on article of charge and must opine on the basis of evidence adduced during the enquiry. The disciplinary authority had abdicated his responsibilities. 19. The appellate authority has also failed to consider the points raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal, as to why the points raised by the petitioner has not been found favourable. In the case in hand, even the charges levelled in the memo of charge has not been supported by the complainant himself nor the witnesses have been produced to support the charges, how the Enquiry Officer has concluded the enquiry that the charges stands proved, is quite perverse and based upon no evidence. The disciplinary authority has also acted without application of mind in accepting the enquiry report, based upon the FIR, which has never been proved in the disciplinary proceeding. The similar mistake has been committed by the Appellate Authority. 20. In view of the discussions made, hereinabove, this Court is left with no option but to set-aside the impugned order, as contained in Memo No. 34 dated 20.05.2014, as well as the order dated 20.12.2019, passed in Service Appeal Case No. 86 of 2019. Notwithstanding, the impugned orders suffer from manifest procedural illegality and in defiance with the prescriptions of the Rules, 2005, since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, much earlier, inasmuch as, at this stage remand of this matter would be termed as a measure to cover up the negligence or laxity of the disciplinary authority in conducting a proper enquiry. Thus, this Court has restrained itself not to remand the matter. Hence, consequent to setting aside the impugned orders, the petitioner shall be entitled to all his consequential benefits, preferably within a period of three months, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 21. Thus, this Court has restrained itself not to remand the matter. Hence, consequent to setting aside the impugned orders, the petitioner shall be entitled to all his consequential benefits, preferably within a period of three months, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 21. The writ petition stands allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed off. 22. There shall be no order as to cost.