Dismissal stands where the disciplinary authority adequately reasons its rejection of an employee’s explanation for prolonged unauthorised absence.

Dr. Om Prakash Lal, a government doctor, was transferred to PHC Rohtas in June 2002 but did not join, citing threats to his life, health issues and family circumstances.

After a period of deputation, he was again directed to join Rohtas in February 2004 and remained absent thereafter.

Departmental proceedings were initiated; the Enquiry Officer found the charges not proved, but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and dismissed him by resolution dated 24 June 2020.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court did not set aside the dismissal but directed the authority to provide reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s response to the tentative disagreement, leaving him at liberty to challenge those reasons.

The authority subsequently issued a reasoned order dated 24 December 2021, which the petitioner challenged in the present proceeding.

Whether the authority’s order dated 24 December 2021 adequately recorded reasons in compliance with the direction in the earlier writ proceeding.

Whether that order disclosed grounds warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court treated its order in the earlier proceeding as requiring the Disciplinary Authority to explain why it rejected the petitioner’s reply to the tentative disagreement with the Enquiry Officer’s findings; the petitioner was permitted to challenge the correctness of the resulting reasons before an appropriate forum.

The State relied on Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 as the framework governing the disciplinary proceeding.

The Court’s review in this case was confined to whether the authority complied with the earlier direction by recording reasons, rather than reopening the dismissal order generally.

The Court found that the order of dismissal had not been set aside in the earlier proceeding and that the present review was therefore limited to the adequacy of the reasons supplied in compliance with that order.

The authority’s order addressed the petitioner’s explanation, including his asserted fear of kidnapping or murder, and noted the absence of supporting material such as a police complaint, Sanha or FIR.

It also found no concrete evidence supporting his prolonged absence from 2004 to 2017.

The Court held that these were sufficient reasons for rejecting his response and maintaining the disciplinary outcome.

It distinguished the authorities cited by the petitioner because those cases concerned direct challenges to dismissal orders, whereas the dismissal here had already been challenged and left undisturbed in the earlier proceeding.

The writ petition was dismissed.