Disciplinary authority must assign independent reasons for disagreement with enquiry reports rather than adopting extraneous committee recommendations.

The petitioner, an Executive Engineer with the Road Construction Department, faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct during 2006-07.

Initially, he was punished with the withholding of two annual increments.

This order was quashed in an earlier writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 803 of 2016) because the Disciplinary Authority had relied on a "Technical Committee" to evaluate the Enquiry Officer's report—a procedure not recognized by law—rather than exercising independent judgment.

The Court granted liberty to the respondents to restart the process from the second show-cause notice stage.

On remand, the department issued a new show-cause notice (dated 30.7.2019) and subsequently issued a notification on August 5, 2021, punishing the petitioner with the withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.

The petitioner challenged this new order, alleging the Disciplinary Authority again failed to apply independent mind.

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority exercised independent judgment in disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer’s findings as required by statutory rules.

2. Whether the second show-cause notice and subsequent punishment order were vitiated by the verbatim adoption of findings from a legally unauthorized Technical Committee.

The Court primarily applied Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 ("CCA Rules"). This rule mandates that the Disciplinary Authority must personally consider the enquiry report and, should they choose to disagree with the findings, must record their own independent reasons based on the evidence or material on record.

The law establishes that the constitution of external bodies, such as a "Technical Committee," to evaluate an Enquiry Officer's findings is an extraneous procedure not contemplated by the CCA Rules.

The Court observed that despite the previous remand and specific instructions to follow Rule 18, the Disciplinary Authority committed the same procedural error.

Upon comparing the second show-cause notice with the earlier, unauthorized Technical Committee report, the Court found that the grounds for disagreement were "identical and verbatim" copies of the Committee’s recommendations.

By merely replicating the findings of the Technical Committee rather than assigning independent reasons based on the case evidence, the Disciplinary Authority failed to demonstrate an independent application of mind.

Consequently, the Court determined that the reliance on extraneous considerations made the disciplinary process legally unsustainable.

The High Court set aside the notification dated August 5, 2021, which inflicted the punishment, and allowed the writ application. The petitioner was granted relief against the withholding of the annual increment.