Disciplinary authorities must consider and give reasons on second-show-cause representations before imposing punishment.

The petitioner, a retired Assistant Engineer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer in the Water Resources Department, was involved in the execution of construction works relating to the right and left guide bundhs of Malai Barrage on the Kao River under two departmental agreements.

Following a flying-squad inquiry, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in 2015 on five charges concerning the preparation and execution of the works.

The Enquiry Officer found all charges proved.

The Disciplinary Authority issued a second show-cause notice, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 12 April 2017.

By order dated 12 November 2018, the petitioner was punished with permanent withholding/reduction of three increments and stoppage of promotion for two years.

His review petitions were rejected on 10 September 2020 and 23 December 2021.

Whether the Disciplinary Authority violated Rule 18(4) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 by failing to consider the petitioner’s representation against the inquiry report and second show-cause notice

Whether a cryptic punishment order, which does not provide reasons for rejecting the delinquent employee’s detailed explanation, violates the principles of natural justice

Whether the punishment order and the consequential review orders were liable to be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration

The Court applied Rule 18(1)–(4) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.

Under Rule 18, the Disciplinary Authority may remit an inquiry for further consideration, must record reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer where applicable, must furnish the inquiry report and its findings to the delinquent employee, and, most importantly, must consider the employee’s representation or submission before proceeding to impose punishment.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice and the requirement of reasoned decision-making, holding that a Disciplinary Authority acts as a quasi-judicial authority in departmental proceedings and cannot reject a detailed defence through a wholly cryptic or unreasoned observation.

The petitioner had submitted a detailed response addressing each charge and explaining why the findings of the Inquiry Officer should not be accepted.

Although the Disciplinary Authority had received that response, the final punishment order did not analyse or deal with its specific grounds; it merely stated, in substance, that the explanation could not be accepted because the Inquiry Officer had found the charges proved.

The Court held that this approach did not satisfy the mandatory obligation under Rule 18(4) to consider the employee’s representation.

Since the Disciplinary Authority was exercising quasi-judicial power, it was required to disclose reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s submissions.

The failure to do so constituted a violation of natural justice and rendered the original punishment order legally unsustainable.

As the review orders affirmed or depended upon the defective original order, they also could not stand.

The Court quashed the punishment order dated 12 November 2018, the review order dated 10 September 2020, and the subsequent order dated 23 December 2021.

The matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order after specifically considering every point raised in the petitioner’s reply dated 12 April 2017 and recording reasons for accepting or rejecting those submissions.

The fresh order was directed to be passed within 90 days from the date of production of the judgment.