A dismissal order is vitiated if passed without examining witnesses or considering the second show-cause reply.

The Petitioner, a Medical Officer at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Jamui, was subjected to a departmental proceeding in 1997 for alleged insubordination and defying transfer orders.

In 2011, the department initiated a de novo enquiry under Rule 17 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005.

The Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service via Memo No. 167 (9) dated 27.02.2015.

The Petitioner was denied subsistence allowance throughout the suspension period (1997–2015) and his subsequent appeal was rejected as non-maintainable.

The Petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.09.2023 during the pendency of the writ.

1. Whether a departmental enquiry is vitiated if findings are recorded without the examination of witnesses or proof of documents.

2. Whether the disciplinary authority’s failure to provide reasons for rejecting the delinquent’s show-cause reply renders the punishment order unsustainable.

3. Whether the denial of salary/allowances for the suspension period without a specific show-cause notice violates Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code.

Rule 17 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005, regarding the procedure for imposing major penalties, and Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code regarding payments post-suspension.

Unless a guilt is admitted, the department must lead evidence and tender witnesses for cross-examination, even in cases based on documents (Jai Prakash Saini v. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd.).

An enquiry officer must act as an independent adjudicator and cannot record findings based on ipse dixit without proving the contents of documents (Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha).

The court observed that the enquiry was fundamentally flawed as no witnesses were examined to prove the charges or the documents relied upon.

The enquiry officer erroneously shifted the burden of proof to the Petitioner to "prove his innocence," whereas the burden in a quasi-judicial proceeding lies with the department.

The Disciplinary Authority acted mechanically, failing to record any reasons for rejecting the Petitioner's second show-cause reply or considering the District Magistrate's letter which explained the Petitioner's inability to join the transferred post.

The denial of back wages for the suspension period was flagged as a violation of natural justice and statutory rules, as no separate show-cause notice was issued for that specific deprivation.

Due to the Petitioner's retirement in 2023 and the 10-year pendency of the writ, the Court declined to remand the matter for a fresh enquiry to avoid further prejudice.

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the dismissal order dated 27.02.2015, directing full salary for the suspension period, 50% backwages from termination till retirement, and full pension benefits.