Disciplinary authority must assign reasons for rejecting government servant's representation under Rule 18(4) of CCA Rules.

The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Bhandari, initially appointed as Circle Inspector, joined service on September 21, 1990.

While posted as Circle Officer, Azam Nagar (Katihar), a departmental proceeding was initiated against him via a memo of charge (Prapatra-Ka) containing three articles of charge.

The petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying the allegations.

Subsequently, a formal departmental proceeding was initiated under Rule 17(2) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.

The Conducting Officer submitted a report finding the charges against the petitioner to be true.

A second show cause notice was issued, to which the petitioner submitted a reply.

The disciplinary authority, without considering the petitioner's reply, imposed a punishment of withholding three increments of pay with cumulative effect via an order dated October 31, 2019 (Memo No. 728).

The petitioner's appeal (Service Appeal Case No. 33/2019-20) before the Appellate/Revisional Authority was also rejected via an order dated May 17, 2022.

The petitioner contended that the punishment order was self-contradictory due to favorable Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).

The State argued that the charges included unauthorized absence, disobedience, and avoidance of duties, and the proceeding afforded due opportunity.

After the inquiry, the Conducting Officer's report (Letter No. 790 dated September 27, 2018) found the charges proved, and the second show cause notice was issued and considered by the competent authority.

The court primarily applied Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 ("CCA Rules, 2005") concerning action on the inquiry report.

Specifically, Rule 18(4) mandates that the disciplinary authority "shall consider the representation or submission, if any, submitted by the Government Servant before proceeding further in the manner specified in sub rules (5) and (6)".

The court also invoked the principle that a disciplinary proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding, requiring proper scrutiny and reasoned orders.

The court found that a major punishment was imposed on the petitioner.

It highlighted that Rule 18(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005, explicitly requires the disciplinary authority to consider the representation or submission made by the government servant.

In the present case, the disciplinary authority's observation merely stated that "Jh HkaMkjh ds fo:) izfrosnu vkjksiksa] muds }kjk lefiZr Li’Vhdj.k] lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ls izkIr tkWp izfrosnu ,oa Jh HkaMkjh }kjk lefiZr f}rh; dkj.k`PNk@vH;kosnu ds leh{ksijkUr ik;k x;k fd vkjksih dk Li’Vhdj.k Lohdkj ;ksX; larks’kizn ugha gS" (meaning, after review of the allegations, petitioner's clarification, inquiry report, and second show cause/representation, it was found that the accused's clarification was not acceptable/satisfactory).

The court determined that this observation did not meet the statutory requirement of Rule 18(4), as it amounted to a mere statement that the representation was unsatisfactory without proper scrutiny or assigning reasons, which is necessary for a quasi-judicial proceeding.

Consequently, the disciplinary authority failed to apply its mind in accordance with the mandate of Rule 18(4).

The appellate authority also erred by merely observing that the explanation was not satisfactory.

Both orders were set aside.

The matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order, after due consideration of the petitioner's second show-cause reply, within a period of 90 days from the date of the order.