. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10662 of 2008 SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 20.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was appointed as an enquiry officer in a departmental proceeding conducted against Akhilesh Kumar Sharma and Shyamnandan Rai. He submitted his enquiry report on 1.2.2008. After submission of the enquiry report, the authorities found that the petitioner had not performed his duty in accordance with law and as such the petitioner was served a copy of charges to face the departmental proceeding which is contained in Annexure 7, dated 18.6.2008. The petitioner has challenged the charge sheet issued to him on the ground that he was acting as quash judicial authority, as such, he cannot be proceeded against for performing his duty, which he did according to law. The short facts of the case are that a trap was organized by the Vigilance Department on the allegation of Bharat Bhushan, that Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Executive Engineer was demanding a bribe to the tune of Rs. 18,500/-. On the day on which the trap was conducted, Shyamnandan Rai was also present in the house of Akhilesh Kumar Sharma. It is further said that the tainted money was recovered from Akhilesh Kumar Sharma. Shyamnandan Rai was found carrying Rs. 40,000/- in his pocket. In the enquiry held the petitioner exonerated Shyamnandan Rai on the ground that the document with respect to 2 the trap case was not produced before him and as such there was no material to show that Shyamnandan Rai had received any bribe. The defence of Shyamnandan Rai was that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for the wedding expenses of his niece from one Sunil Kumar, and that was the money found in his pocket, it had nothing to do with the tainted money. Infact there is no allegation that Rs. 40,000/- was illegally paid as a bribe amount. The court would not go into the merits of the stand and the defence raised by Shyamnandan Rai at this stage as it is not an issue before this court. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this court that the petitioner has acted fairly in discharge of his duty and it not the job of the petitioner to produce the documents. The documents in an enquiry proceeding has to be presented by the Presenting Officer. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet, that he had not taken into account the documents relating to the trap case is unjustified. It is further submitted that the suspicion raised against the petitioner that the enquiry was conducted in a slip-shod manner is unwarranted, inasmuch as the authorities knew very well that the petitioner was to retire on 30.4.2008 and as such they had given him the responsibility of conducting enquiry within a period of one year; it was expected that he should conclude the enquiry within the aforesaid time. It has been argued that it is not the case of Vigilance Department that the tainted money was found from the possession 3 of Shyamnandan Rai. The only suspicion raised is that he was associated with Akhilesh Kumar Sharma and as such the findings in the enquiry report are not of such a nature that would affect the case of the main accused persons. Lastly it is submitted that the disciplinary authority could have disagreed with the enquiry report and ordered for further enquiry, after changing enquiry officer and the presenting officer. All these aspects argued may be a valid ground for raising a defence in the proceeding but it cannot be considered by this court at this stage. I accordingly find no reason to interfere with the order by which the departmental proceeding has been initiated. The petitioner may face the enquiry which should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year. This writ petition is, thus, disposed of. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)