Disciplinary Authority must record specific findings on each imputation and consider all inquiry reports under Rule 19.

The petitioner, an IIT Delhi resident and government servant, challenged the disciplinary order dated 07.06.2024 (Memo No. 8989), which imposed a minor punishment of "Censure" for the year 2022-23

He also challenged the review order dated 03.10.2024, which upheld the punishment

The proceedings originated from a "hot discussion" between the petitioner and other officers during a godown inspection

While the petitioner claimed he acted on superior instructions and cited favorable inquiry reports from the District Magistrate, the Disciplinary Authority relied solely on a complaint from the Agriculture Department to impose the penalty

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority violated the mandatory procedures for imposing minor penalties under Rule 19 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005

2. Whether the failure to consider existing preliminary inquiry reports and record specific findings on each imputation vitiates the punishment order

Rule 19 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 2005 ("Bihar CCA Rules, 2005")

Rule 19(1)(d) mandates the recording of a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour

Rule 19(2) prescribes that the record of proceedings must include the evidence produced during the inquiry [sub-clause iv] and the findings on each imputation [sub-clause vi] supported by reasons [sub-clause vii]

The Court observed that while a full formal inquiry under Rule 17 is not mandatory for minor punishments, the Disciplinary Authority is strictly bound by the procedural safeguards in Rule 19

The Court found that although three separate inquiry reports existed regarding the incident, the Disciplinary Authority moved to punish the petitioner without discussing or considering these reports

The Court reasoned that a lawful finding can only be reached through a "conjugal reading" of all available inquiry reports

By ignoring these documents and failing to record specific findings on each individual imputation of misconduct as required by Rule 19(1)(d) and Rule 19(2)(iv), the authorities committed a gross jurisdictional and procedural error

The writ petition was allowed, and the punishment order dated 07.06.2024 and the review order dated 03.10.2024 were both set aside