Departmental inquiry vitiated by failure to examine witnesses and prove documents to substantiate charges of misconduct.

The petitioner, who retired as In-Charge Headmaster on September 30, 2018, was subjected to a post-retirement departmental proceeding under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

The charges involved dereliction of duty and failure to demand additional funds for student benefit schemes (Mukhyamantri Shatabdi Balika Poshak Yojana) for the year 2016-17.

While the petitioner denied all charges, the Disciplinary Authority, via Memo No. 180 dated February 2, 2022, imposed a punishment of 10% pension deduction for three years.

On appeal, the Additional Chief Secretary modified the penalty to a 5% pension deduction for three years via Memo No. 887 dated April 29, 2022.

1. Whether the departmental proceedings conducted under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules were vitiated by procedural lapses and violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether an order of punishment based on an enquiry report can be sustained if no oral evidence was led and documents were not proved by witnesses.

Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules, which allows for the withholding or withdrawing of pension if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or having caused pecuniary loss in a departmental proceeding.

Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which mandates providing a list of witnesses and evidence to the delinquent.

The principles from Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. [2026 (3) PLJR 125 SC], establishing that unless guilt is admitted, the department must lead evidence first and allow for cross-examination, even in cases based on documents.

Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570, holding that suspicion is not a substitute for legal proof.

The court found the proceedings fundamentally flawed as no list of witnesses was provided with the memo of charge, violating Rule 17(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules.

The Enquiry Officer relied solely on the Presenting Officer’s statements and unproven documents, denying the petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or adduce evidence in defense, thereby violating Rule 17(14).

Applying the Jai Prakash Saini precedent, the court noted that documents must be proved by witnesses unless admitted by the charged employee.

The Disciplinary Authority failed to provide reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s reply, acting in a "mechanical manner".

The court emphasized that while the standard of proof is the preponderance of probability, a penalty cannot be imposed on a "peremptory finding" without any valid evidence.

The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders of punishment dated February 2, 2022, and April 29, 2022.

The court directed the respondent authorities to restore the petitioner's full pension and pay all arrears resulting from the unlawful deductions within four months.

The court declined to remand the matter for a fresh enquiry, noting that the petitioner had already retired and a remand would reward the department's negligence in conducting the initial enquiry.