Absence of Presenting Officer and Non-Service of Second Show-Cause Notice Vitiates Departmental Inquiry Proceedings

The petitioner, while serving as a Circle Inspector in Muzaffarpur, was subjected to a departmental inquiry based on an anonymous complaint alleging corruption and procedural irregularities regarding the seizure of a vehicle belonging to Gammon India Limited

Following an inquiry report that found him "partially guilty," the Disciplinary Authority (D.I.G., Tirhut Range) awarded a punishment of withholding salary increments for six months (equivalent to one black mark)

The petitioner’s subsequent appeal to the Inspector General and memorial to the Director General of Police were both rejected

The petitioner challenged these orders on the grounds that no Presenting Officer was appointed, the inquiry officer acted as the prosecutor, and no second show-cause notice was issued

Whether the departmental proceeding was vitiated due to the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer assuming the role of the prosecutor

Whether the failure to serve the inquiry report and issue a second show-cause notice by the Disciplinary Authority violated the principles of natural justice and statutory rules

The court applied Rules 17 and 18 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, which mandate the appointment of a Presenting Officer to lead the department's case

require the Disciplinary Authority to provide the delinquent employee with the inquiry report and an opportunity to respond before imposing punishment

Relying on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772 and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570, the court emphasized that an Inquiry Officer must act as an independent adjudicator and cannot perform the functions of a Presenting Officer

The court found that the inquiry was conducted in "complete violation" of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Specifically, the department failed to appoint a Presenting Officer as per Rule 17(5)(c); instead, the Inquiry Officer improperly assumed that role to prove the charges, thereby compromising his impartiality

the court noted that none of the witnesses, including the S.H.O. and the complainant, supported the prosecution's case, rendering the findings of "partially guilty" baseless

Procedurally, the Disciplinary Authority bypassed the mandatory requirement of issuing a second show-cause notice and providing the inquiry report to the petitioner under Rule 18(3), which denied him the right to rebut the findings

This series of omissions rendered the entire proceeding quasi-judicially flawed and violative of natural justice

Consequently, the High Court quashed the punishment order dated 25.10.2012, the appellate order dated 22.04.2013, and the order rejecting the memorial dated 03.10.2013

The respondents were directed to restore the petitioner’s entitlements as they existed prior to the punishment and pay all consequential benefits within three months

The writ petition was allowed