01Facts
The petitioner, a Co-operative Extension Officer, was proceeded against for alleged misconduct arising from his tenure as Circle Officer, Parihar.
pp. 4–8A disciplinary proceeding followed, and the Registrar imposed censure and stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect; the order was later modified twice.
pp. 4–8The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.
pp. 4–8He challenged the punishment and appellate orders, contending, among other things, that no second show-cause notice had been issued before the final punishment order.
pp. 4–8The State submitted that the punishment was minor and that the petitioner had been found guilty by the Conducting Officer.
p. 702Issues
i.Whether the disciplinary authority could impose the punishment on the basis of the Conducting Officer’s report without following the procedure prescribed by Rules 17 and 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, including issuance of a second show-cause notice.
pp. 10–11ii.Whether the punishment orders and the appellate order were liable to be set aside for procedural non-compliance.
pp. 10–1103Law Applied
Rule 19 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 governs the procedure for minor penalties. It requires notice of the proposed action and imputations, an opportunity to make a representation, consideration of that representation and any inquiry record, and findings on each imputation.
pp. 8–10Where the disciplinary authority considers an inquiry necessary and proceeds under Rule 17, the procedure prescribed by Rule 17 must be followed; the Court held that Rules 17(23) and 18 required a second show-cause notice before the final order in the circumstances of this case.
pp. 10–11No judicial precedent was cited.
04Reasoning
The Court accepted that a second show-cause notice is not invariably required for every minor penalty under Rule 19.
pp. 10–11However, the State’s reliance on the Conducting Officer’s finding showed that the punishment was based on the inquiry report.
pp. 10–11Since the disciplinary authority had proceeded on that basis, it was required to follow the applicable Rule 17 procedure, including the second show-cause notice requirement identified by the Court.
pp. 10–11The failure to issue that notice amounted to a procedural violation.
pp. 10–1105Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the punishment order dated 12 July 2019, its modifications dated 15 and 26 September 2022, and the appellate order dated 3 February 2020.
pp. 11–12It directed the competent authority to issue a second show-cause notice and pass a fresh order within 60 days, taking into account the relevant prior writ and LPA orders.
p. 12Original Court PDF
Raja Ram SinghvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
