A disciplinary enquiry is vitiated when denied charges lack witness testimony or legally proved documentary evidence.

The petitioner, a medical officer and former Superintendent of Nalanda Medical College Hospital, was proceeded against in relation to alleged irregularities in the purchase, installation and subsequent non-functioning of a CT-scan machine.

A preliminary enquiry committee submitted its report on 15 December 2015, following which a charge memorandum dated 12 January 2016 was issued containing four charges concerning defective procurement, non-compliance with tender conditions, failure to take corrective action, and negligence in protecting government interests.

The enquiry officer found the charges partially proved; however, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment by reducing the petitioner’s pay from Level 14 to the lowest stage of Level 9 through Notification dated 16 February 2023.

The petitioner’s review petition under Rule 24(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 was rejected on 20 May 2025, allegedly without reasons and on limitation grounds.

Whether the disciplinary proceeding was vitiated because the disciplinary authority failed to consider the petitioner’s written statement before appointing or referring the matter to the enquiry officer, contrary to Rule 17(4) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.

Whether the enquiry and punishment were legally sustainable when the petitioner denied the charges, but the department neither examined witnesses nor properly proved the relied-upon documents.

Whether the disciplinary authority acted unlawfully by relying on matters not included in the original charge memorandum and by failing to consider the petitioner’s second show-cause reply.

Whether the punishment order and the review order were liable to be quashed on account of these procedural and evidentiary defects.

The Court applied Rule 17(4) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, under which the disciplinary authority must consider the delinquent’s written statement before referring the matter for enquiry.

It also applied the principles of natural justice governing departmental enquiries: where charges are denied, the department must lead evidence, examine witnesses, prove disputed documents, and provide an opportunity of cross-examination.

Relying on Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors., 2026 INSC 305, the Court held that an enquiry based solely on unproved documents, without examination of witnesses, is vitiated when the charges are denied.

It further relied on State of Bihar v. Anil Kumar Sinha, LPA No. 770 of 2024, decided on 20 November 2024, which held that absence of evidence in a departmental enquiry constitutes a case of “no evidence” and cannot ordinarily be cured by remand.

The disciplinary authority must also confine its determination to the charges framed and must consider the delinquent’s response before imposing punishment.

The Court found that the petitioner had been directed to submit his written statement directly before the enquiry officer, demonstrating non-compliance with Rule 17(4), which required the disciplinary authority to first consider his defence.

The Court further noted that the petitioner’s specific defence—that he had handed over charge before installation of the CT-scan machine and was not responsible when it became defective—was not considered; instead, the final order attributed responsibility to him for the machine’s non-functioning over a period when he was not Superintendent.

The disciplinary authority also relied on allegations concerning cameras and generator operation that were absent from the charge memorandum, and there was no meaningful consideration of the second show-cause reply.

Since the charges were denied, the department was required to prove them through admissible evidence.

The absence of examined witnesses and proof of documents rendered the enquiry a case of no evidence under the principles stated in Jai Prakash Saini and Anil Kumar Sinha.

These defects were substantive violations of the prescribed procedure and natural justice, not mere technical irregularities.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the punishment order contained in Notification No. 198(9) dated 16 February 2023 and the review order contained in Memo No. 531(9) dated 20 May 2025.

The writ petition was allowed.