Departmental instructions cannot amend Rules of Executive Business governing disciplinary authority.

The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 3 January 1995, was promoted as Executive Engineer on 5 August 2016 and as Superintending Engineer on 25 October 2023.

During his service, four disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him: the first concerned alleged failure to undertake sufficient maintenance work while he was posted as Executive Engineer, Works Division, Patori; the second concerned non-submission of a brick-compressive-strength test report relating to his tenure as Assistant Engineer, Works Division, Begusarai; the third concerned alleged delayed joining upon promotion as Superintending Engineer; and the fourth concerned alleged irregularities in the evaluation of a technical bid while he was Superintending Engineer, Works Circle, Darbhanga.

The petitioner submitted replies to all the charges.

His explanation in respect of the first charge was accepted by the Department on 25 September 2025.

An order imposing the punishment of censure for the period 2023–24 was nevertheless issued by the Additional Secretary on 29 August 2025 in relation to the technical-bid proceedings.

The petitioner challenged the three subsequent charge memoranda and the punishment order, principally contending that they had not been issued by the competent disciplinary authority and that the punishment was discriminatory and unsupported by the petitioner’s individual responsibility.

Whether the charge memoranda dated 25 July 2023 and 12 February 2024 were issued by the competent disciplinary authority in accordance with Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and the Rules of Executive Business, 1979?

Whether departmental letter no. 6968 dated 12 July 2021 could alter or override the allocation of disciplinary decision-making prescribed by the Rules of Executive Business, 1979?

Whether the punishment of censure imposed on the petitioner for alleged irregularities in technical-bid evaluation was sustainable when the evaluation was undertaken by a multi-member committee and the petitioner’s defence regarding the role of the Divisional Accountant and other members had not been properly displaced?

Whether the first charge memorandum dated 22 November 2019 required interference after the petitioner’s explanation had been accepted by the Department?

The Court applied Rule 2(j) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, under which the disciplinary authority is the appointing authority, and Rule 17(3), which requires the disciplinary authority to draw up, or cause to be drawn up, the substance of the imputations of misconduct.

It further applied Rules 22(2)(i) and 32(a)(vii) of the Rules of Executive Business, 1979, framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution: disciplinary cases concerning specified Group ‘B’ officers are to be submitted to the Minister-in-Charge, while cases involving other State Service officers, outside the scope of Rule 22(2)(i), are to be submitted to the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary.

The Court held that an administrative departmental letter issued by the Principal Secretary cannot amend or override the Governor-made Rules of Executive Business.

It also considered Rule 23 of the Bihar Public Works Account Code, under which the Divisional Accountant is responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable rules and orders in transactions within the division.

The Court treated the petitioner’s status at the time of issuance of the charge memoranda as material and noted that he was then serving in Group ‘A’ posts as Executive Engineer or Superintending Engineer.

Although the respondents relied on departmental letter no. 6968 dated 12 July 2021 to contend that the Departmental Minister was the appointing and disciplinary authority for posts above Assistant Engineer, the Court held that the letter could not amend the statutory Rules of Executive Business.

Under Rule 32(a)(vii), the relevant disciplinary cases were required to be submitted to the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary; however, the charge memoranda did not indicate approval either by the Chief Minister or even by the Departmental Minister.

Moreover, the memoranda were issued under the Secretary’s signature, contrary to the requirement that the disciplinary authority frame or cause the charges to be framed under Rule 17(3).

The Court therefore found the three challenged charge memoranda legally unsustainable.

Regarding the punishment order, the Court found that the technical bid had been considered by a committee comprising the petitioner, two Executive Engineers and the Divisional Accounts Officer.

Since responsibility was collective and the Divisional Accountant had a specific duty under Rule 23 of the Public Works Account Code, the petitioner could not be punished merely because he chaired the committee, particularly when his defence had not been adequately rebutted.

As to the 2019 charge, the Court declined to adjudicate the challenge because the petitioner’s explanation had already been accepted by the Department.

It set aside the charge memorandum dated 25 July 2023, the two charge memoranda dated 12 February 2024, and the punishment order dated 29 August 2025, holding them unsustainable for want of action by the competent disciplinary authority and, in relation to the punishment, also because the petitioner could not alone be held responsible for the decision of a multi-member technical-bid committee.

The Court did not separately quash the 2019 charge memorandum because the petitioner’s explanation to it had already been accepted by the Department.