Disciplinary authorities must reasonedly consider Rule 18(4) representations; cryptic orders violate natural justice.

The petitioner, a Junior Engineer appointed through the Bihar Public Service Commission on 31 August 1988, retired from service on 28 February 2021.

While posted in the Irrigation Division, Nawanagar, Rohtas, he was associated with construction works relating to the Malai Barrage and left guide bandh over river Kao under two agreements executed with M/s Jay Mahaveer Enterprises.

Following an inspection by a departmental flying squad, a charge memo was issued against him under Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (“Bihar CCA Rules”).

A departmental inquiry was conducted in which four charges were held proved against the petitioner.

The petitioner was thereafter issued a second show-cause notice dated 21 February 2017, to which he submitted a detailed reply explaining each allegation.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of permanent reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay and withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect.

Whether the Disciplinary Authority violated Rule 18(4) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 by failing to consider the petitioner’s representation against the inquiry report before imposing punishment?

Whether the impugned punishment order was legally sustainable when it merely rejected the petitioner’s explanation through a cryptic observation without assigning reasons?

Rule 18(3) requires the inquiry report, together with the Disciplinary Authority’s findings, to be furnished to the delinquent employee for representation, while Rule 18(4) mandates that the Disciplinary Authority must consider that representation before proceeding further.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice and the requirement that a Disciplinary Authority, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, must pass a reasoned and speaking order.

Mere consideration of the inquiry officer’s findings, without dealing with the employee’s specific objections, is insufficient.

The Court found that the petitioner had submitted a detailed response to the second show-cause notice, addressing each of the charges and the findings against him.

However, the final punishment order contained only a one-line conclusion that the petitioner’s explanation could not be accepted because the inquiry officer had found the charges proved, without examining or rejecting the specific grounds raised in the petitioner’s reply.

The Court held that the Disciplinary Authority was required by Rule 18(4) to consider the representation and provide reasons for rejecting it.

Since the Authority failed to do so, the order was non-speaking and amounted to a violation of natural justice.

The Court distinguished the Disciplinary Authority’s quasi-judicial duty from that of an ordinary administrative authority, emphasising that reasons were essential to demonstrate proper application of mind.

The impugned order was accordingly set aside.

The matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order after considering every point raised in the petitioner’s reply to the second show-cause notice, specifically recording reasons for accepting or rejecting those points.

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

The writ petition was consequently allowed.