Appointment of the primary complainant as Enquiry Officer vitiates departmental proceedings on the ground of bias.

The petitioner, a Clerk in the Aurangabad Block, was accused of illegal gratification in collusion with the Block Development Officer.

Based on a letter dated 19.07.2022 sent by the Senior Deputy Collector (Respondent No. 4) to the District Magistrate, the petitioner was suspended and departmental proceedings were initiated via Prapatra ‘Ka’.

The District Magistrate appointed the same Senior Deputy Collector—the original complainant—as the Conducting Officer.

Despite the Presenting Officer (Circle Officer) reporting a lack of evidence, the District Magistrate imposed a minor punishment of stopping two increments with cumulative effect on 03.01.2023.

This order was subsequently upheld by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, in a service appeal on 05.10.2023.

1. Whether the departmental proceeding was vitiated by bias due to the complainant being appointed as the Conducting Officer.

2. Whether the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are sustainable in law given the alleged procedural lapses under the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005.

The court primarily assessed the application of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, specifically Rule 17 (procedure for major penalties) and Rule 19 (procedure for minor penalties).

It further relied on the fundamental principle of Administrative Law and Natural Justice regarding "Bias" (Nemo judex in causa sua), which dictates that a person cannot be a judge in their own cause or in a matter where they are the complainant.

The court observed a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

It highlighted that the entire disciplinary action originated from a complaint (Letter No. 280) authored by the Senior Deputy Collector.

However, the District Magistrate appointed this same officer as the Conducting Officer to preside over the inquiry.

The Court reasoned that such an appointment inherently makes the proceeding "full of bias," as the accuser cannot act as the neutral adjudicator of the facts.

Furthermore, while the State argued that Rule 19 (minor punishment) does not require the rigorous procedure of Rule 17, the court found that the underlying bias rendered the procedural choice moot, as the foundational fairness of the inquiry was compromised.

It held that a disciplinary proceeding where the complainant acts as the Conducting Officer is legally unsustainable due to bias.

The District Magistrate, Aurangabad, was granted liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding, which must be concluded within 90 days in strict compliance with Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, 2005.