Disciplinary findings based on unproven calculations and identical facts as a criminal acquittal are legally unsustainable.

The petitioner, a member of the Bihar Administrative Service, was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding initiated in 2021 following a 2016 Vigilance investigation

The core allegation was amassing disproportionate assets (DA) valued at ₹82,84,001/-, later updated to ₹1,20,03,056/- in the Vigilance charge-sheet

The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of DA to the extent of ₹19,21,992/- and partial concealment of assets

Consequently, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of 'censure' and withholding of three increments with cumulative effect via order dated 24.11.2023

The petitioner challenged these orders on grounds of procedural illegality, lack of evidence, and his subsequent "honourable acquittal" by the Special Vigilance Court on 12.06.2025

1. Whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated due to the non-examination of witnesses to prove the contested calculation of disproportionate assets?

2. Whether the subsequent honourable acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case on identical charges renders the departmental punishment unsustainable?

The court applied Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which mandates a formal enquiry for major penalties

It relied on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570, establishing that departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial and documents must be proved by witnesses rather than mere production

Furthermore, the court applied the principles from Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2024) 1 SCC 175 and Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar (2025) SCC OnLine SC 890, which hold that where charges, evidence, and witnesses are identical in both criminal and departmental proceedings, an honourable acquittal makes the disciplinary punishment unjust and oppressive

The Court observed that the enquiry was fundamentally flawed as it was a case of "no evidence." Although the petitioner explicitly disputed the arithmetical calculation of assets—pointing out double-counting of a DDA flat and a car—the department failed to examine any witnesses (including the Vigilance Investigating Officers) to prove the contents of the calculation charts

The Court held that in DA cases, mere production of documents is insufficient; the burden lies on the employer to prove the charges via oral testimony, especially when calculations are contested

Additionally, the Court noted that the Special Vigilance Judge had already scrutinized the same evidence and found the prosecution failed to prove the case, resulting in an "honourable acquittal"

Since the departmental and criminal cases were based on the same set of facts, witnesses, and documents, the Court found it unfair to sustain the punishment

The writ petition was allowed, and the enquiry report dated 20.04.2023, the punishment order dated 24.11.2023, and the review rejection dated 07.03.2024 were quashed. The Court directed that the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits, including arrears and consideration for promotions, in light of his acquittal and the setting aside of the disciplinary orders