Disciplinary authority must record reasons and provide hearing before disagreeing with Enquiry Officer’s findings.

The petitioner, a Havildar in BMP-12, was charged with indiscipline and disobeying orders during a deputation at a tea estate in 2018.

A departmental enquiry was conducted where the Enquiry Officer, based on witness testimony indicating another individual (Md. Salauddin) was the primary actor, found no evidence to prove the charges against the petitioner and submitted an exonerating report on 30.09.2019.

However, the Disciplinary Authority (Commandant, B.M.P.-12), disagreeing with the findings, bypassed the report and inflicted a punishment of withholding increments for two years (equivalent to three black marks) on 18.10.2019.

The petitioner’s subsequent appeal to the D.I.G. of Police was rejected on 26.04.2020.

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority can reverse an Enquiry Officer’s finding of innocence and impose a penalty without first issuing a disagreement note and affording the delinquent employee an opportunity to represent against such disagreement?

Rule 18(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which mandates that if a disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry report, it must record reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings.

Supreme Court precedent in Punjab National Bank Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7 SCC 84], which established that principles of natural justice require the disciplinary authority to provide a tentative note of disagreement and a fresh opportunity for hearing to the delinquent officer before reversing an exoneration.

The Court observed that the Enquiry Officer had clearly exonerated the petitioner after finding a lack of material evidence.

Under Rule 18(2) of the CCA Rules, 2005, the Disciplinary Authority is statutorily obligated to record reasons for disagreement.

In this case, the Commandant failed to serve any notice or communicate the reasons for differing from the Enquiry Officer's findings before passing the punishment order.

The Court noted that even though a counter-affidavit was filed, the State could not confirm if a show cause notice regarding the disagreement was ever issued to the petitioner.

Applying the Kunj Behari Misra doctrine, the Court reasoned that it is "unfair and iniquitous" to deprive a charged officer of the right to represent their case when the Disciplinary Authority intends to overturn a favorable enquiry report.

The High Court set aside the punishment order dated 18.10.2019 and the appellate order dated 26.04.2020.

The writ petition was allowed, and the Court directed the respondents to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner within three months.