JUDGMENT : (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. ) 1) In this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dt. 8.8.2023 passed by the 3 rd respondent imposing punishment of dismissal on the petitioner and also the decision taken on 3.12.2024 by the Standing Appeal Committee which was communicated to the petitioner on 20.12.2024, dismissing his appeal. 2) The petitioner was working in a Class-III post from 7.12.2005 in the Civil Court, Dhanbad in the Copying Department. 3) A complaint was lodged by one Goutam Kumar Tewary against the petitioner on 15.3.2022 before the Registrar of the Civil Court, Dhanbad alleging therein that the petitioner has realized Rs. 4.50 Lakhs for providing employment as Fourth Grade employee at Civil Court, Dhanbad and that the said amount was given to the petitioner between 25.12.2014 to 7.1.2015. The complainant backed this allegation by an affidavit dt. 11.5.2022 stating therein that petitioner demanded Rs. 8.00 Lakhs from him for providing employment in all. 4) Based on the complaint, Enquiry Case No. 1 of 2022 was registered by the Registrar, Civil Court Dhanbad and the statement of the complainant was recorded on 9.6.2022. 5) The Registrar of the Civil Court, Dhanbad issued show cause notice on 10.6.2022 to the petitioner calling for his explanation as to why strict action may not be taken for taking bribe to do unauthorized work. 6) Petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 13.6.2022 denying the charges. 7) The 3 rd respondent initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner and appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. A presenting officer was also appointed and a charge sheet dt. 18.08.2022 framed against him along with statement of imputation appended thereto were served on the petitioner. 8) On 29.8.2022 petitioner submitted response to the charge sheet denying the charges framed and contending that he was falsely implicated. 9) The complainant examined himself and also marked a Pen Drive containing audio and video clippings about the transaction in question between the complainant and the petitioner. He also submitted a certificate dt. 24.9.2022 under section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act but he could not produce the mobile phone in which the same was recorded. 9) The complainant examined himself and also marked a Pen Drive containing audio and video clippings about the transaction in question between the complainant and the petitioner. He also submitted a certificate dt. 24.9.2022 under section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act but he could not produce the mobile phone in which the same was recorded. 10) During the course of the enquiry, both the complainant and the petitioner filed a compromise memo stating that they had compromised the case out side the court and the loan amount of Rs. 4.50 Lakhs taken by the petitioner to meet his personal needs had been returned back to the complainant and complainant had got no grievance against the petitioner. 11) An Inquiry Report dt. 11.7.2023 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct. 12) Thereafter a second show cause notice dt. 17.7.2023 was issued to the petitioner by the 3 rd respondent directing him to submit a reply as to why major punishment be not awarded against him. 13) The petitioner replied to the second show cause notice and raised the plea that the finding of Inquiry Officer was based on no evidence and there was also violation of principle of natural justice. He also contended that the contents of the Pen Drive have not been proved in accordance with section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act. 14) The 3 rd respondent, however, agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and rejected the contentions of the petitioner and imposed a major punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner. 15) Petitioner challenged the same in this Court by filing WP(S) No. 5101 of 2023 but the said writ petition was not entertained on the ground that petitioner had statutory appeal in terms of Rule 20 of the Jharkhand State Civil Courts’ Officers and Staffs ( Recruitment, Promotion, Transfer and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2018. The order in the writ petition was passed on 1.11.2023. 16) Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Standing Appeal Committee which appeal was also dismissed on 3.4.2024. 17) Assailing the same, this writ petition is filed. The order in the writ petition was passed on 1.11.2023. 16) Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Standing Appeal Committee which appeal was also dismissed on 3.4.2024. 17) Assailing the same, this writ petition is filed. 18) The petitioner contends that he had unblemished service of 21 years before the complaint was lodged against him on 15.3.2022, there was inordinate delay of 6 years in filing the complaint for which no explanation was offered by the complainant, and that the complainant himself later admitted that it was a friendly loan given to the petitioner and he had lodged a false complaint out of anger. 19) It is further contended that neither there is any evidence nor expert opinion that the conversation recorded in the Pen Drive with regard to the demand of money was that of the petitioner and only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, the petitioner was dismissed from service. He contended that action of the respondent is arbitrary, whimsical and unreasonable and the defence of the petitioner was not considered in the proper perspective. 20) We have noted the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner. 21) In the Inquiry Report dt. 11.7.2023, the Inquiry Officer examined the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties. The Inquiry Officer noted that the complainant had made statement during the course of Inquiry regarding the transaction of payment of Rs. 4.50 Lakhs to the petitioner specifying that the said amount was paid on assurance given by the petitioner to ensure employment as a Peon in the court, but he had not been given any employment though 8-10 years have elapsed and the petitioner was evading to return the said amount. 22) The Inquiry Officer held that the complainant had reiterated the allegation of taking of Rs. 4.5. Lakh for providing employment to him by the petitioner but later the matter was compromised as the amount was repaid by the petitioner, and so he did not want to proceed further in the Inquiry proceeding. 22) The Inquiry Officer held that the complainant had reiterated the allegation of taking of Rs. 4.5. Lakh for providing employment to him by the petitioner but later the matter was compromised as the amount was repaid by the petitioner, and so he did not want to proceed further in the Inquiry proceeding. 23) The Inquiry Officer observed that though there is no documentary evidence to prove the transaction of money, the complainant had stated that he made payment in cash to the petitioner on assurance of employment and the petitioner had totally denied the same, but later the petitioner had paid the money to the complainant who then turned around and said that it was only a friendly gift. 24) The Inquiry Officer also relied on the audio and video clipping contained in the Pen Drive and rejected the plea of the petitioner on the ground that strict rules of evidence do not apply and the complainant had given a certificate under section 65B, supporting the genuineness of the contents recorded in the Pen Drive. 25) The Inquiry Officer held that the audio and video clip go to show the transaction of money on assurance of employment given by the petitioner and the complainant had been identified in the video clips and conversation between them could be clearly heard. He also noted that the petitioner is shown to be receiving the money and was also using the names of officers of the judiciary and had used disrespectful and derogatory words against dignitaries. 26) We are of the opinion that there was no occasion for the complainant to give a complaint against the petitioner and for recording the audio and video clips if the incident was not true. The findings of the Inquiry officer are based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be termed as perverse or based on no evidence. 27) The disciplinary authority, agreed with the speaking order of the Inquiry Officer and imposed major punishment on the petitioner of dismissal from service. 28) The Standing Appeal Committee also rejected petitioner’s appeal recording that during the pendency of departmental inquiry there was a compromise between the petitioner and the complainant and the fact of the petitioner having taken money from the complainant has thus become proved as the same money was also returned by the petitioner under the compromise. 28) The Standing Appeal Committee also rejected petitioner’s appeal recording that during the pendency of departmental inquiry there was a compromise between the petitioner and the complainant and the fact of the petitioner having taken money from the complainant has thus become proved as the same money was also returned by the petitioner under the compromise. The Appellate Committee also recorded that the conversation recoded between the petitioner and the complainant in the Pen Drive indicated that he was also maligning the entire institution of the judiciary. 29) Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed. 30) Sri Indrajit Sinha, counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no charge levelled against the petitioner that he was maligning the entire institution of judiciary but both the Inquiry Officer, disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate Standing Committee appear to be influenced by this circumstance. 31) No doubt, there was no such charge levelled against the petitioner in the charge memo and the charge pertains to the petitioner taking Rs. 4.5. Lakhs from the complainant for providing employment as a peon in the Civil Court at Dhanbad. The petitioner had denied taking any amount at all, in his defence. 32) During the course of the Inquiry proceedings, the complainant was examined and he reiterated the allegation levelled against the petitioner but thereafter the petitioner and the complainant both compromised and the petitioner returned Rs. 4.5. Lakh taken from the complainant because of which the complainant expressed an intention not to pursue this proceeding. 33) Having denied the receipt of any amount from the complainant in his explanation, since the petitioner admitted to have received Rs. 4.5 Lakhs in the compromise though as a friendly loan, it is clear that the petitioner had lied in his defence. Otherwise he would not have returned Rs. 4.5. Lakhs. 34) The story of the loan is also not established since no loan agreement or promissory note was produced during the disciplinary proceedings. In fact not even a defence that it was a loan was pleaded in the explanation to the charge sheet. Moreover, all government servants while in service have to even disclose borrowings to their superior authorities and it is not the case of the petitioner that he has even done that. In fact not even a defence that it was a loan was pleaded in the explanation to the charge sheet. Moreover, all government servants while in service have to even disclose borrowings to their superior authorities and it is not the case of the petitioner that he has even done that. 35) The Pen Drive filed by the complainant contained audio and video clippings in which the petitioner was seen to be receiving money from the complainant for providing a job in the court at Dhanbad to complainant and at the same time also abusing the authorities of judiciary and the persons working therein. 36) Certificate under section 65B was filed by the complainant though the Cell Phone in which it was recorded could not be produced. The Inquiry Officer had seen the video clippings and heard the audio in the Pen Drive and relied on the same and other circumstances as well, to hold the petitioner guilty of the charge framed. 37) We do not agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there is no material to hold the petitioner guilty in the disciplinary inquiry. We are satisfied that the statement of the complainant made before the Inquiry Officer coupled with the contents of the Pen Drive and the compromise memo filed by the parties, absence of any loan agreement or promissory note, proved the misconduct committed by the petitioner on preponderance of probabilities. 38) We, therefore, do not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the 3 rd respondent dismissing the petitioner from service or with the order passed by the Standing Appellate Committee dismissing the petitioner’s appeal. 39) Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.