Departmental punishment based on no evidence and conducted in violation of statutory procedure is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner, while serving as a Block Education Officer, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 20,000 for the release of salary arrears of a teacher

Following a vigilance trap in 2013 and subsequent criminal charges, a departmental inquiry was initiated

The petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2015

Initially, the department dismissed him and withheld his pension, but the High Court quashed that order in CWJC No. 7321 of 2016, granting liberty to proceed afresh

On 20.02.2020, the Director of Primary Education issued a fresh order under Rule 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, permanently withholding the petitioner's full pension based on the inquiry report

The petitioner challenged this order alleging gross procedural violations, including the non-appointment of a presenting officer and lack of witness examination

1. Whether the impugned order withholding pension was passed by a competent authority as per the Rules of Executive Business and Bihar Pension Rules

2. Whether the departmental proceeding was vitiated due to violations of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, specifically regarding the failure to examine witnesses and the inquiry officer assuming the role of the prosecutor

The court applied Rule 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which permits the State Government to withhold pension on proof of serious crime or grave misconduct

It strictly enforced the procedural requirements of Rules 14 and 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, regarding the service of the list of witnesses/documents and the appointment of a Presenting Officer

The court relied on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, establishing that departmental inquiries are quasi-judicial and charges must be proved by evidence, not just by tendering documents

It further applied Jai Prakash Saini v. MD, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd., affirming that unless a delinquent accepts guilt, the employer must lead evidence and provide an opportunity for cross-examination

The Court found that the department failed to provide a list of witnesses or documents along with the charge memo, violating Rule 17(3) of the CCA Rules

Crucially, no Presenting Officer was appointed, forcing the Inquiry Officer to double as the prosecutor, which compromised the impartiality of the quasi-judicial process

No witnesses—including the complainant or the person from whom the bribe was allegedly recovered—were examined to prove the documents or the charge; thus, the petitioner was denied the right to cross-examination

The Court noted that the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the petitioner’s second show-cause reply before passing the final order

Applying the standard of "no evidence," the Court determined that the finding of guilt was based on mere suspicion rather than the required "preponderance of probability" established through valid evidence

It held that the petitioner is entitled to 100% pension and directed the respondents to calculate and pay all arrears from the date of superannuation within three months

The Court declined to remit the matter for a fresh inquiry, noting that remanding a case after a failed attempt to lead evidence would unfairly reward the department’s negligence

If payments are not made within three months, the petitioner is entitled to 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the writ