Absence of oral and documentary evidence in a departmental inquiry renders the dismissal order legally unsustainable.

The petitioner, a Revenue Karamchari appointed in 1986, was dismissed from service on 06.12.2018 following a departmental inquiry.

The proceedings were initiated based on a complaint alleging that the petitioner demanded a bribe of ₹2,00,000/- to influence jamabandi cancellation cases.

A preliminary inquiry by the Additional Collector found the allegations proved, leading to the petitioner’s suspension on 29.04.2017.

A charge memo was issued on 02.08.2017, followed by an inquiry report on 11.10.2017 that upheld the charges.

The disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner retrospectively from the date of suspension, which was later modified by the Appellate Authority to the date of the dismissal order.

The petitioner challenged these orders on grounds of procedural irregularities and lack of evidence.

1. Whether the departmental proceeding was vitiated by the failure to provide a statement of imputations, a list of documents, and a list of witnesses along with the charge memo as per statutory rules.

2. Whether the inquiry was conducted in violation of natural justice and Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules due to the failure to examine witnesses or prove documentary evidence.

3. Whether the findings of guilt were based on "no evidence" and lacked reasoned application of mind.

The Court primarily applied Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005, which mandates the delivery of articles of charge accompanied by a statement of imputations, a list of documents, and a list of witnesses.

It relied on Rule 17(14) regarding the obligation of the Presenting Officer to lead oral and documentary evidence.

It relied on Rule 17(23) regarding the requirement for a reasoned inquiry report.

Precedents cited include Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, establishing that documents must be proved by witnesses and an Inquiry Officer must act as an independent adjudicator rather than a representative of the department.

Precedents cited include State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, establishing that documents must be proved by witnesses and an Inquiry Officer must act as an independent adjudicator rather than a representative of the department.

The Court found the proceedings fundamentally flawed as the charge memo did not include the statement of imputations or a list of witnesses/documents, violating Rule 17(3) & (4).

During the inquiry, the department failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence; specifically, the complainant (Binod Kumar Singhania) was never examined, depriving the petitioner of the right to cross-examination.

The Inquiry Officer failed to record independent findings, merely narrating the charges and the Presenting Officer’s opinion, which signifies a non-application of mind.

The Court noted that the disciplinary and appellate authorities rejected the petitioner's defense (regarding a private monetary transaction with a friend's wife) without assigning reasons.

Citing Vikash Kumar @ Vikas Kumar, the Court held that where a finding is based on "no evidence," the court should not remand the matter to fill lacunae but must set aside the punishment.

The Court quashed the dismissal order dated 06.12.2018 and the appellate order dated 17.01.2023.

Since the petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2025 during the pendency of the litigation, he is deemed to have continued in service until retirement.

The Court directed the respondents to pay all arrears of salary, allowances, and retirement benefits, including pension effective from 01.12.2025, within three months.