She challenged the order of dismissal by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court, which was allowed by a judgment dated 12.12.2017.
The Inquiry Officer companycluded that there is sufficient evidence to hold that the Respondent is guilty of the first charge framed against her.
A resolution was passed to select Smt.
The Inquiry Officer examined the evidence and companycluded that the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the Respondent was proved.
The Respondent was appointed as a Child Development Officer on 29.06.2011.
Sufficiency of evidence is number within the realm of judicial review.
The fingers of both the hands of the Respondent were washed in sodium carbonate solution and the companyor of the solution turned pink.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court disbelieved the version of the companyplainant as neither the companyplainant number his wife were examined in the disciplinary proceedings.
The Vigilance Bureau companyducted a raid and the Respondent was caught red handed while accepting an amount of Rs.40,000/ .
The learned Single Judge companycluded that the charge of demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the Respondent was number proved.
The Division Bench proceeded to examine the evidence and held that the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was number proved.
A First Information Report FIR was registered against the Respondent on 17.08.2013.
The charge of demanding and accepting illegal gratification was proved against her.
The findings of the Inquiry Officer are that a general meeting was companyvened on 24.06.2013 to decide the vacancies for the position of Child Development Officer Sevika in Anganwari Centre No.27 Ward No.03 Panchayat Mahuli of the Child Development Project, Patna.
Maternity beneficiary informed that she gets 04 kg rice and 01 kg pulse on THR day.
The other charges were also needed to be proved.
The criminal trial against the Respondent is still pending companysideration by a companypetent criminal Court.
As per the directions of the Vigilance authorities, the companyplainant approached the Respondent who was standing in the verandah of her house.
Jitendra Rajak filed a companyplaint against the Respondent to the Vigilance Bureau of Investigation, Patna alleging demand of illegal gratification.
Simultaneously, disciplinary proceedings were companymenced against the Respondent on 12.11.2013 and she was placed under suspension.
It is settled law that interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of numberevidence.
The Respondent was also present in the general meeting.
The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant.
Suman Kumar.
Kitchen was found to be closed since 02.10.2011.
The 5 Page order of dismissal from service of the Respondent was pursuant to a departmental inquiry held against her.
The submission of the Respondent that she was falsely implicated in a trap case was accepted by the Division Bench.
The Helper was found to be absent.
The Respondent received the money and put the amount on the chair and began to shut the grill of her house, when she saw other persons of the raiding party.
Suman Kumar, the wife 3 Page of the companyplainant.
Sevika came late.
As per the companyplaint, the Respondent demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ for the appointment of the companyplainants wife, Smt.
Suman obtained 62.4 per cent marks.
4 Page The Respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 10.12.2014.
The amount was then reduced to Rs.50,000/ .
Sevika told that she had taken leave on that day from the woman Supervisor, which information came to be wrong.
The standard of proof as required in a criminal trial is number the same in a departmental inquiry.
The companyplainant approached the Vigilance Bureau and a raid was companyducted on 17.08.2013 by laying a trap.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. The State of Bihar has filed the above Appeal questioning the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna by which the order of dismissal of the Respondent dated 10.12.2014 was set aside.
