Employee may raise all factual and legal objections to the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority.

The petitioner, a judicial officer, challenged the charge memo dated 4 September 2025, the inquiry report dated 10 July 2026, and communications concerning initiation of disciplinary proceedings. He alleged, among other things, that the proceedings were unlawfully initiated at the direction of the Registrar General and that a judicial officer could not be appointed as the inquiry officer under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.

A notice dated 20 July 2026, enclosing the inquiry report, had been issued to him but was not challenged in the writ petition. The petitioner had replied to that notice on 3 August 2026 and sought leave to submit an additional reply.

1. Whether the petitioner could obtain relief against the inquiry report when he had not challenged the notice enclosing it and had already submitted a reply to that notice.

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an additional reply and have his submissions considered by the competent disciplinary authority before it passed an order.

The petitioner relied on the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, including Rule 17(5)(c), and principles of natural justice to challenge the disciplinary proceedings and the appointment of a judicial officer as inquiry officer.

The judgment did not interpret those provisions or decide the constitutional challenge to Rule 17(5)(c). It directed that the petitioner be allowed to raise available factual and legal pleas in an additional reply and that the competent disciplinary authority consider the replies and act in accordance with law.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the 20 July 2026 notice enclosing the inquiry report, although he had responded to it.

Rather than adjudicating the challenges to the charge memo, inquiry report, or inquiry officer’s appointment, the Court recorded the petitioner’s request for time to file an additional reply. It preserved his ability to raise all available factual and legal grounds and required the disciplinary authority to consider the replies before passing an order in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of, with pending applications also disposed of. The Court did not decide the substantive legality of the disciplinary proceedings or the validity of Rule 17(5)(c).