A charge memo issued without jurisdiction invalidates the ensuing disciplinary proceeding.

The petitioner, a retired Bihar Administrative Service officer, was posted as Deputy Development Commissioner, Gopalganj, in 2010.

A Panchayat Secretary, Bhanu Pratap Chouhan, was arrested in a vigilance trap for accepting a bribe and was subsequently subjected to departmental proceedings.

The petitioner was later charged with failing to properly scrutinise the enquiry report and with not recommending a major penalty against the Panchayat Secretary.

The Enquiry Commissioner submitted a report stating that there was no occasion to frame charges against the petitioner and that the charge memo appeared baseless.

After the petitioner’s retirement, the proceedings were continued under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

The State ultimately imposed withholding of 5% of his pension for five years.

In an earlier writ petition, CWJC No. 21659 of 2019, the High Court set aside the punishment order dated 08.03.2019 for non-consideration of the petitioner’s explanation and directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh speaking order after considering each contention raised by him.

The State thereafter passed Resolution No. 4693 dated 25/28.03.2022, affirming the penalty.

The petitioner challenged that resolution in the present proceedings.

1. Whether the impugned Resolution No. 4693 dated 25/28.03.2022 was legally sustainable when it failed to consider and discuss the petitioner’s specific contentions, despite the earlier High Court direction to pass a speaking order.

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were without jurisdiction because the charge memo against the petitioner, a Gazetted Officer, was issued by the Collector, who was neither his appointing authority nor his disciplinary authority.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to quashing of the pensionary penalty and payment of consequential dues.

The Court applied Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules, under which pensionary benefits may be withheld or withdrawn for proved grave misconduct or negligence after retirement.

It also considered Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, which requires due consideration of the enquiry report and the delinquent employee’s representation before imposition of penalty.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, reasoned decision-making and non-application of mind, holding that an authority must pass a speaking order dealing with the material contentions raised by the employee.

It further applied the jurisdictional principle that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated by the competent appointing or disciplinary authority; a charge memo issued by an authority lacking such competence is without jurisdiction and cannot sustain a disciplinary proceeding.

The Court also treated the directions issued in the earlier writ petition as binding, requiring the disciplinary authority to consider each contention in the petitioner’s explanation dated 20.12.2017.

The Court found that the impugned resolution did not consider or discuss even one of the contentions raised in the petitioner’s explanation dated 20.12.2017, contrary to the express direction in the earlier judgment to pass a speaking order after such consideration.

This amounted to non-application of mind and violation of the principles governing reasoned disciplinary orders.

Independently, the Court held that the charge memo itself was jurisdictionally defective because the petitioner was a Gazetted Officer and the Collector who issued the memo was neither his appointing authority nor disciplinary authority.

Since the foundation of the disciplinary proceeding was invalid, the Court considered remand inappropriate.

The failure to comply with the earlier judicial direction and the absence of jurisdiction in initiating the proceeding together rendered the penalty unsustainable.

The Court declined to remand the matter for fresh consideration because the charge memo itself was without jurisdiction.

The State respondents were directed to ensure payment of all dues payable to the petitioner within three months from receipt or production of a copy of the judgment.