Departmental Proceeding Vitiated by Non-Examination of Witnesses, Non-Supply of Inquiry Report, and Breach of Natural Justice

The petitioner, Sujit Kumar, was a Revenue Karamchari serving at Chhatapur Block. Following the 2008 floods, allegations arose regarding illegal distribution of relief materials.

While high-level enquiry committees initially found lapses by senior officials rather than the petitioner, he was eventually suspended in 2010 and served a memo of charges in 2011.

Despite the Presenting Officer expressing satisfaction with the petitioner’s explanation, the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved.

The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from service on 23.03.2012.

The Appellate Authority upheld this dismissal, citing that the matter was sub-judice before the Vigilance department.

1. Whether the departmental proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with the procedures mandated under Rule 17 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005.

2. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the subsequent dismissal order were based on legally admissible evidence or merely on surmises and conjectures.

Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 2005, specifically sub-rules (3), (4), and (14), which mandate providing a list of documents and witnesses and ensuring the right to cross-examination.

Punjab National Bank v. Roop Singh Negi (2009) 2 SCC 570, which establishes that a departmental proceeding is quasi-judicial and charges must be proved by legally admissible evidence rather than suspicion.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772, holding that an Enquiry Officer must act as an independent adjudicator and cannot sustain charges without examining oral evidence to prove documents.

The Court observed that the departmental proceeding suffered from foundational procedural lapses. No statement of imputation, list of witnesses, or list of documents were provided with the memo of charges as required by Rule 17(3) and (4).

The Enquiry Officer acted improperly by assuming the role of the Presenting Officer, proving charges based on documents without examining their authors or any witnesses to corroborate the prosecution's case.

The court noted that the Presenting Officer himself had expressed satisfaction with the petitioner's reply, yet the Enquiry Officer arrived at a finding of guilt in a "mechanical manner".

The failure to serve the enquiry report on the petitioner before the final order constituted a gross violation of natural justice.

The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority failed to provide reasoned orders, ignoring the petitioner's specific defenses.

It allowed the writ petition and quashed the dismissal order dated 23.03.2012 and the appellate order dated 23.02.2013.

The matter was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed afresh from the stage of issuing a proper memo of charges, with a direction to conclude the proceedings within six months; the proceedings must account for his status as a retired employee.