Ajit Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Namrata Singh, learned AC to GA-12 for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for following relief(s):— “(i) For quashing of Order dated 04-05-2020 contained in Memo No. 421 issued under the signature of respondent Director Primary Education, Patna, Bihar by which entire amount of pension of the petitioner was forfeited under the proceeding of Rule 43(A) of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. (ii) For direction of respondents for payment of pension amount of the petitioner with arrears. (iii) For any relief(s) for which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case”. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was member of Bihar Subordinate Education Service and was posted as Block Education Officer, Dhanarua, District- Patna and while he was posted in the aforesaid Block, a complaint was filed against him for the allegation of demand of Rs. 5000/- as bribe for releasing salary of one Nand Kumar, Teacher of Middle School, Panditganj, District-Patna. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint the Vigilance Team trapped the petitioner for demand of Rs. 5000/- on 26.10.2016 and registered Vigilance PS Case No. 113 of 2016 dated 26.10.2016. 4. It has next been submitted that thereafter in contemplation of initiating departmental enquiry, the petitioner was suspended and further, the petitioner was served with memo of charge dated 26.05.2017 as contained in letter no. 1460 issued under the signature of District Programme Officer, Patna and the petitioner submitted his categorical show-cause reply before the Inquiry Officer on 12.07.2017. The Inquiry Officer is said to have submitted his report before the Director, Primary Education Department, Patna vide letter no. 729 dated 15.07.2017 along with report of Presenting Officer as well as reply/defence of the delinquent officer. It has been submitted that during pendency of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner got superannuated on 30.11.2017. 5. It has next been submitted that after superannuation of the petitioner, the pending proceeding was converted under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 by the authority on 12.01.2018 vide letter 1466 dated 21.08.2019 issued under the signature of Director, Primary Education, Patna, Bihar. It has been submitted that from the memo of charges it would appear that the petitioner was departmentally proceeded for taking bribe of Rs. It has been submitted that from the memo of charges it would appear that the petitioner was departmentally proceeded for taking bribe of Rs. 5000/- under the provisions of Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976 (for short ‘ Rules, 1976) but it appears from the record that the allegations of the kind related with taking bribe only falls under the provisions of ‘Rules, 1976’ and such conduct cannot be stretched to fall under the category of financial irregularities or in the category of gross corruption for which, proceeding under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, could have been resorted to by making due conversion of the same. 6. The authorities upon conclusion of the departmental inquiry, decided to forfeit the entire pension of the petitioner vide impugned letter dated 04-05-2020 as contained in Memo No. 421 issued under the signature of respondent Director Primary Education, Patna, Bihar. 7. The petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order dated 04.05.2020 as contained in Memo No. 421 issued under the signature of respondent Director, Primary Education, Patna, Bihar had filed a writ petition being CWJC No.22169 of 2019, for grant of pensionary benefits during the pendency of the departmental inquiry, which was finally heard, after the impugned order was passed and the petitioner was granted liberty vide order dated 08.07.2020 to challenge the decision of withholding of pension by filing an appropriate writ petition, and as such, the petitioner by way of the instant writ petition has challenged the order passed by the Respondent-authorities withholding/forfeiture of the entire pension. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the manner in which the departmental inquiry, in the instant case, is said to have been conducted by the authorities and accordingly, has submitted that the departmental proceeding was not concluded properly rather it was performed in a perfunctory manner, which would be evident from the concluding part of the inquiry report as well as the impugned order which is said to have been passed in the instant case. Evidently, the petitioner was awarded such a major punishment only in the background of the Vigilance case which is pending before the trial court. Evidently, the petitioner was awarded such a major punishment only in the background of the Vigilance case which is pending before the trial court. The reply of the petitioner submitted during course of the departmental enquiry before the Inquiry Officer for following the due procedures in order to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe, for which the trap was conducted and the vigilance case is said to have been instituted but the Inquiry Officer without any basis and the materials having surfaced to hold this petitioner guilty of having taken bribe, the findings of guilt were recorded, based on which, the punishment of forfeiture is said to have been declared. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the allegation, which is said to have been levelled by the complainant in the vigilance case, was with respect to demand of bribe for releasing of salary for the month of January, 2016 while in the show-cause filed against the memo of charge, the petitioner had categorically stated that the petitioner had already issued the letter on 19.09.2016 to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer cum Headmaster, Middle School, Dhanarua by which the salary for the month of January, 2016 was already released and copy of the said letter dated 19.09.2016 issued by the petitioner was already received by the complainant on 20.09.2016. Still, the complaint against this petitioner was made by the complainant on 21.10.2016 to the Superintendent of Police, Incharge, Vigilance, Patna in which the allegation for demand of bribe to the tune of Rs. 5000/- for releasing salary for the month of January, 2016 is said to have been made. The petitioner, during course of hearing, had tried to persuade the Inquiry Officer for taking the evidence in this regard that complaint of the complainant was false as there was no occasion for the petitioner to have demanded bribe for releasing salary for the month of January, 2016 as on the date of complaint, the complainant had already received the salary for the month of January, 2016 and before the date of institution of the First Information Report by the vigilance team, the petitioner had already ordered for release of the salary and the same was paid also, as such, there was no occasion for the complainant to have made such complaint alleging demand of bribe for releasing the salary. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the framing of charge by making submission to the effect that before instituting departmental inquiry, the complaints were not verified and merely on the basis of registration of the First Information Report, the authorities decided to proceed departmentally on the same and similar allegation for which, there is already a criminal case instituted by the vigilance, which is pending consideration. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the provisions of C.C.A Rules, 2005, submits that the manner in which the charges were required to have been framed by supplying materials and providing the list of witnesses, have grossly been violated in the instant case and as also the procedures as prescribed under Rule-17 for imposing major penalties have not been adhered to. From perusal of the procedures as enumerated in Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, it is quite evident that the substance of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior as a definite or distinct article of charges based on which the inquiry is proposed against the Government servant under the Rule, the same was required to have been supplied with and while doing so, the authorities were under the legal obligation to supply the statement of all the relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the government servant including a list of such document by which, and a list of such witnesses by whom, the article of charges are proposed to be sustained. 12. It has next been argued that the Disciplinary Authority was also under legal obligation to deliver or cause to be delivered to the government servant a copy of the articles or charge, such statement of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require the government servant to submit, within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. These all mandatory provisions is said to have been violated for which, learned counsel for the petitioner is said to have invited the attention of the Inquiry Officer. These all mandatory provisions is said to have been violated for which, learned counsel for the petitioner is said to have invited the attention of the Inquiry Officer. And from the order so passed forfeiting the pension of this petitioner under 43(A) of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 does not reflect such consideration and exercise which was legally obligated upon the Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority before taking away the valuable rights and passing the order of the kind which has been put to challenge by the writ petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner wraps up his submission by referring the cases of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and State of U.P & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in AIR 2010 SC 3131 whereby and whereunder the Enquiry Officer while performing the quasi judicial function has legal obligation to draw inferences supported by any evidence, and the material brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved and should not be based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjecture: the allegations were required to have been proved during the course of inquiry by affording the delinquent with the opportunities for cross-examination and only thereafter, the punishment /final order was required to have been passed, which apparently is said to have been violated. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent-State submits that the inquiry is held by the competent authority as per the prescribed procedure under Rules and there is no violation of principle of nature justice. By issuing memo of charge and giving appropriate opportunity of hearing for submission of explanation to the charges levelled against him and upon such submission of such explanation and by following the principles of natural justice, the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry and the report was submitted vide letter no. 729 dated 15.07.2017, where all the charges have been found to be proved against the petitioner. 15. It has further been submitted that on receipt of the inquiry report, second show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner by the Director, Primary Education, Patna, Bihar vide Memo No. 421 dated 04.05.2020 enclosing the Inquiry report facilitating the petitioner to offer his comment on the said report. It has next been submitted that despite several opportunities vide letter no.1466 dated 21.08.2019, letter no. It has next been submitted that despite several opportunities vide letter no.1466 dated 21.08.2019, letter no. 1630 dated 01.10.2019 and letter no. 1840 dated 22.11.2019 issued to the petitioner for submitting his comments in terms of Bihar Pension Rules but no reply was submitted and in view of the materials on record, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the final order as contained in Memo No. 421 dated 04.05.2020. 16. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner has been conducted in accordance with the provisions of Bihar C.C.A Rules, 2005 and there is no lacuna in the decision making process as well as the petitioner had not availed the remedy of appeal and the prayer of the petitioner is fit to be rejected. 17. This matter was heard on several occasions and this Court vide order dated 04.09.2025 had passed the order keeping in mind that the vigilance case, which is said to have been registered in which the members of the trap team including the verifier and other persons were party to the said trap team and pursuant to the arrest having been made, vigilance case is said to have been registered based on which, the departmental inquiry in question was initiated against this petitioner. During the course of hearing, this Court vide order dated 04.09.2025, directed the State to take instruction as to whether the evidences, which were supposed to to be laid in this case in terms of dictum of the order of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this High Court has actually been carried out in this case or not. An appropriate direction was issued which are reproduced as under:— “Heard the parties. 2. On earlier occasion, this case was heard, and the counsel for the State was directed to take instructions as to whether the members of the Trap Team, including the Verifier, were called in question for recording their evidences, and whether the petitioner was given due opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the Respondent-State submits that she would be taking instructions as to whether the evidences which were supposed to be laid in this case in terms of dictum of the order of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this High Court has actually been carried out in this case or not. 4. List this case on 25.09.2025.” 18. 4. List this case on 25.09.2025.” 18. Pursuant to the directions so issued by this Court, a supplementary counter affidavit is said to have been filed by the Respondent No.3 and following statements have been made which are relevant reproduced hereinbelow:— “5. That at the outset, it is humbly stated that the answering respondent has filed a counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit, in the present case and the present second supplementary counter affidavit is being filed, in pursuance of the order dated 04.09.2025 whereby following direction has been given: “….. 2. On earlier occasion, this case was heard, and the counsel for the State was directed to take instructions as to whether the members of the Trap Team, including the Verifier, were called in question for recording their evidences, and whether the petitioner was given due opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. 6. That at this stage, learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that she would be taking to whether the instructions as evidences which were supposed to be laid in this case in terms of dictum of the order of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this High Court out in has actually been carried this case or not..." 7. That it is humbly stated that the members of the Trap Team including Verified were not called in as evidence in the departmental proceeding in question. (emphasis supplied by me) 8. That it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner did not submit his show cause reply, in pursuance to the show cause issued under the relevant provision of the Bihar Pension Rule when the departmental proceeding was converted into proceeding under Rule 43 (B) of the Bihar Pension Rules, despite repeated direction contained in letter which was duly served upon him by the office of the District Education Officer. 9. That it is important to mention here that the connected criminal case bearing Spl. Case (Vigilance) No. 62/2016 (The State of Bihar vs. Shiv Shankar Chaudhary) is pending adjudication and the current status of the case is that the same is on evidence and the next hearing date is 15.12.2025, which is evident from the case status of the case.” 19. Case (Vigilance) No. 62/2016 (The State of Bihar vs. Shiv Shankar Chaudhary) is pending adjudication and the current status of the case is that the same is on evidence and the next hearing date is 15.12.2025, which is evident from the case status of the case.” 19. On careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, it is an admitted position that the prosecution against the petitioner for the same charges of accepting bribe is still pending consideration before the competent Vigilance Court and if in this background, the Disciplinary Authority found it expedient in the interest of justice to initiate the departmental proceeding, in such event, the charges could have been proved only by the persons of the Vigilance Department, who had formed the trap team, inasmuch as, they were the persons who had caught the petitioner red handed. From perusal of the report, it is evident that none of those witnesses, involved in the trap, investigation and arrest of the petitioner, were examined and in fact, the obligation cast upon them under Bihar C.C.A Rules, 2005 as also in the backdrop of the nature of allegation, which is said to have been levelled against this petitioner, the Inquiry officer was under legal obligation to call all such officers connected with the trap team to adduce their evidences and, upon having adduced during such inquiry, appropriate cross-examination of said witnesses was required to have been offered to the petitioner, which is admittedly missing from the inquiry report as well as the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority. 20. In view of the materials, which is said to have surfaced on record, the manner in which, disciplinary proceeding is said to have been conducted and concluded cannot be allowed to sustain taking note of the provisions made in the Bihar C.C.A Rules, 2005, which lays down the manner in which the departmental proceeding is to be carried out. 21. The present is the case where documentary evidences in which the role of raiding party which had caught the petitioner red handed taking bribe and or the Investigating Officer will be limited to prove the documents. 21. The present is the case where documentary evidences in which the role of raiding party which had caught the petitioner red handed taking bribe and or the Investigating Officer will be limited to prove the documents. Nonetheless, they are material witnesses because the petitioner has denied the entire occurrence in the manner it has been stated by the authorities of Vigilance Department and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the Inquiry Officer to have called all such officials connected with the trap team including the complainant and the independent witnesses for deposing in the departmental inquiry even in the absence of any such request having been made by any of the parties. It was a legal obligation cast upon the Inquiry Officer for carrying out the fact finding work before arriving to any conclusion with regard to the allegations of the kind which is said to have been levelled against the petitioner by drawing any definite conclusion. 22. In this regard, it is apt to refer that the State Government has already issued the Circular dated 07.05.2010 laying down the necessity of appearing of the officials being party to lead the vigilance case including trap cases. In the departmental proceeding, the police officials cannot refuse to appear before the inquiry officer if they become responsible in getting a public officer suspended on the charge of criminal misconduct punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. In the departmental proceeding, the police officials cannot refuse to appear before the inquiry officer if they become responsible in getting a public officer suspended on the charge of criminal misconduct punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. In fact, the said Circular of the State Government dated 07.05.2010 itself reads as follows:— ^^i=kad&fuŒfoŒ@LFkkŒ&178@10 2717 fcgkj ljdkj fuxjkuh foHkkx lwpuk Hkou] iVukA Ás"kd] v'kksd dqekj pkSgkj] Áèkku lfpoA lsok esa] ljdkj ds lHkh foHkkx lHkh foHkkxkè;{k lHkh ÁeaMyh; vk;qDr lHkh ftyk inkfèkdkjh lHkh iqfyl vèkh{kd iVuk] fnukad 7-5-2010 fo"k;&vkijkfèkd dnkpkj esa fyIr ljdkjh lsodksa ds fo:} vkijkfèkd dk;Zokgh ds lkFk&lkFk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh Hkh ÁkjaHk djus ds lacaèk esaA egk'k;] dkfeZd ,oa Á'kklfud lqèkkj foHkkx ¼lEizfr lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx½ }kjk i=kad&2324 fnukad 10-07-2007 ds ekè;e ls fn'kk funsZ'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd vkijkfèkd dnkpkj esa fyIr ljdkjh lsodksa ds fo:} leku vkjksiksa ij vkijkfèkd dk;Zokgh ds lkFk lkFk leqfpr rF;ksa ij vkèkkfjr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh Hkh ÁkjaHk dh tk;A ysfdu bèkj dbZ ekeys ,sls ns[kus esa vk;s gSa ftlesa vkijkfèkd dnkpkj esa fyIr ljdkjh lsodksa ds fo:} fuxjkuh vUos"k.k C;wjks esa rks ekeyk ntZ gqvk gS ysfdu lwpuk fn, tkus ds ckotwn Á'kklh foHkkx }kjk ;k rks foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ÁkjaHk ugha dh xbZ gS ;k blesa foyEc fd;k x;k gSA Hkz"Vkpkj ;k vkijkfèkd dnkpkj esa fyIr ljdkjh lsodksa dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Hkz"Vkpkj fujksèkd vfèkfu;e rFkk HkkŒnaŒfoŒ dh èkkjkvksa ds rgr vijk/k fl} gks tkus ds ckn ltk Ánku djus lacaèkh fu.kZ; fu;ekuqlkj fy;k tk;sxk ysfdu ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd ljdkjh lsodksa dks lsok lafgrk rFkk ljdkjh lsok vkpkj fu;ekoyh ds Ákoèkkuksa ds rgr nafMr djus dh dkjZokbZ ljdkj ds }kjk gh varr% dh tkuh gSA Hkz"Vkpkj ,oa dnkpkj ij ÁHkkoh fu;a=.k ds fy, foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk le;c} lapkyu vko';d gS rkfd nks"kh ljdkjh lsod dks Rofjr ltk nh tk lds] ftlls ,sls ÑR;ksa ds Áfr nwljs ljdkjh lsodksa esa ;g Hkko iSnk gks fd vkijkfèkd dnkpkj esa fyIr ik;s tkus ij mUgsa U;k;ky; }kjk ltk fn, tkus esa Hkys foyac gks] ljdkj ds Lrj ij mUgsa rRdky ltk feysxhA ;g foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh Lora= :i ls pykbZ tkuh gS rFkk bldk vkijkfèkd dk;Zokgh esa ltk gksus vFkok ltk eqfDr ls dksbZ lacaèk ugha gksxkA ;fn ljdkjh lsod vkijkfèkd dk;Zokgh esa ltk ls eqDr Hkh gks x;k gks rks Hkh foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa nks"k fl} gksus ij ltk nh tk ldsxh ;k ltk dk;e j[kh tk ldsxhA vr% vuqjksèk gS fd vius Lrj ls lHkh vèkhuLFk dk;kZy; Áèkkuksa dks Hkh blls voxr djkus dh Ñik dh tk;A fo'oklHkktu gLrk{kj@& 05-05-2010 ¼v'kksd dqekj pkSgkj½ Áèkku lfpoA** 23. Taking note of the Circular dated 07.05.2010, the relevant provisions of 2005 Rules as narrated aforesaid and considering the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court referred hereinabove, and further the statements made by the respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit pursuant to order dated 04.09.2025 making categorical statement in paragraph-7 “ That the members of the trap team including the Verifier were not called in as evidence in the departmental proceeding in question”. Therefore, this Court is left with no option but to hold that in absence of any of the relevant witnesses examined in course of departmental proceeding held against the petitioner, the departmental proceeding in question stands completely vitiated in law and such departmental proceeding including the inquiry report and the consequential order of the disciplinary authority dated 04.05.2020 cannot be given sanction of law and accordingly, by holding such disciplinary proceeding to be completely farce in the eye of law and as also being an eye-wash is hereby set aside. 24. In view of the departmental inquiry having been found to have vitiated in law and the petitioner who is said to have retired in the year 2017 itself, while the vigilance case is still pending, as such, this Court directs the consequences to follow in view of the provisions of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, without any inordinate delay preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 25. The writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed.