Departmental punishment based on "no evidence" and failure to examine witnesses is legally unsustainable and perverse.

The petitioner, an employee of the Department of Agriculture, was allegedly caught in a trap case by the Vigilance Department for accepting a bribe of Rs. 8,500/- in 2007

He was dismissed from service in 2008, but the Patna High Court set aside the dismissal in 2022 due to procedural lapses, remanding the matter for a fresh enquiry

Since the petitioner had superannuated in 2012, the proceedings were converted into a pension withholding case under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950

Despite the remand, no witnesses (including the complainant or trap team) appeared during the fresh enquiry, and no documents were proved

Nevertheless, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 16.08.2024 forfeiting 100% of the petitioner’s pension

A subsequent review petition was rejected on 16.08.2025

1. Whether an order of punishment in a departmental proceeding is sustainable when no witnesses are examined and no documents are proved to support the charges

2. Whether observations in a trap memorandum can be treated as substantive evidence of guilt in the absence of oral testimony

The court applied the principles of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005

Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950

Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009), which established that evidence collected by an Investigating Officer must be proved by examination of witnesses in departmental proceedings

The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Anil Kumar Sinha (LPA 770/2024) and The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Vikas Kumar (LPA 446/2024), holding that while the standard of proof is "preponderance of probability," a finding of guilt cannot be based on "no evidence" or the mere failure of the delinquent to prove innocence

The court found that the second enquiry suffered from the same fatal defect as the first: the department failed to produce a single witness, including the complainant or the Vigilance Trap Team members

The Court reasoned that "mere tendering of evidence" does not constitute proof; the contents of documents like the Post Trap Memorandum must be verified through testimony

The Enquiry Officer's conclusion that the petitioner was guilty because he failed to produce evidence of his innocence was deemed a reversal of the burden of proof, which is legally impermissible

The court characterized the Enquiry Officer’s report as "irrational, illogical, and perverse" because it relied on a document that was never proved

Since the management failed to lead valid evidence despite a prior remand and opportunity, the court refused to allow the management to benefit from its own negligence

The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated 16.08.2024 (forfeiture of pension) and 16.08.2025 (rejection of review). The petitioner was granted all consequential benefits following the setting aside of the impugned orders