Authority to issue second show-cause notice under Rule 18(3) includes communication by authorized delegates.

The petitioner’s late husband, a Revenue Karmchari, was dismissed in 2019 following a departmental proceeding regarding the unauthorized recommendation to open a Jamabandi for 107 bighas of Bettiah Raj land

This dismissal was previously quashed by the High Court in CWJC No. 808 of 2020 due to procedural defects, with a direction to recommence the enquiry from the stage of Rule 17(4) of the CCA Rules

Upon reinstatement and fresh suspension, the department conducted a new enquiry

A second show-cause notice was issued by the Deputy Collector (Establishment) on 23.11.2022

Following the delinquent's reply, the Disciplinary Authority (Collector) passed a final order of dismissal on 02.01.2023

The petitioner (as the widow) challenged the dismissal and the subsequent rejection of the service appeal

1. Whether the second show-cause notice was invalid as it was issued by the Deputy Collector (Establishment) instead of the Disciplinary Authority (Collector) under Rule 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005?

2. Whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority were based on legal evidence given the lack of oral witnesses and claims of coerced signatures?

3. Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct?

Rule 18(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which mandates that the disciplinary authority forward or "cause to be forwarded" the enquiry report for the delinquent’s representation

The court relied on the principles of judicial review under Article 226, which limit the court's intervention to checking procedural compliance, adherence to natural justice, and ensuring punishment is not "shockingly disproportionate" to the gravity of the misconduct

The Court rejected the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge, noting that under Rule 18(3), the Disciplinary Authority (the Collector) took the decision to issue the notice, and the Deputy Collector (Establishment) merely acted as the communicating channel; this satisfied the "cause to be forwarded" requirement of the statute

Regarding the merits, the Court observed that the delinquent had substantially admitted to signing the relevant documents. His defense—that signatures were obtained under coercion by the Circle Officer—was not supported by any contemporaneous evidence or complaints

Since the delinquent was the custodian of the records and admitted the factual basis of the documents, the Court found the proving of charges based on documentary evidence sufficient without the oral examination of witnesses

The Court determined that facilitating the illegal transfer of 107 bighas of public land was a grave misconduct, justifying the highest penalty

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that (i) the second show-cause notice was validly issued, and (ii) the punishment of dismissal was commensurate with the seriousness of the fraud involving Bettiah Raj land

The writ petition was dismissed on the merits