A disciplinary authority cannot introduce new charges through a disagreement memorandum under Rule 18.

The petitioner, a former State Drugs Controller who retired on 30 September 2016, faced departmental proceedings while in service.

The Inquiry Officer exonerated him of all charges in a report dated 21 July 2016.

The Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement-cum-second show-cause notice on 9 January 2017; the petitioner contended that it introduced new charges not included in the original charge memorandum.

The Authority thereafter imposed a permanent 10% reduction in pension and denied other payments for the suspension period, except subsistence allowance, by order dated 16 November 2017.

The petitioner’s review petition was dismissed on 22 December 2022.

He also relied on a decision setting aside punishment imposed on the Director-in-Chief, a co-delinquent facing the same charges.

Whether the disagreement-cum-second show-cause notice unlawfully introduced charges beyond those in the original charge memorandum, contrary to Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.

Whether the punishment and subsequent order could be sustained in light of the setting aside of the punishment imposed on the similarly situated co-delinquent.

Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 governed the procedure for disagreement with an Inquiry Officer’s findings.

The Court held that a disagreement memorandum cannot introduce charges beyond the scope of the original charge memorandum; doing so violates the prescribed procedure.

The Court also noted its earlier decision in CWJC No. 1549 of 2018, which had set aside the punishment imposed on the Director-in-Chief on the same charges.

The Inquiry Officer had found none of the original charges proved.

On examining the disagreement memorandum, the Court found that its points of disagreement effectively constituted new charges absent from the original charge memorandum.

Issuing such charges through the disagreement-cum-second show-cause process breached Rule 18, so the resulting punishment could not stand.

The Court also noted that the punishment of the co-delinquent on the same charges had been set aside in the earlier writ petition.

It set aside both orders and allowed the writ petition.