Failure of Presenting Officer to examine witnesses and Inquiry Officer assuming dual roles vitiates departmental proceedings.

The petitioner, an operator at the Transmission Subdivision, Sultanganj, was placed under suspension on 22.12.2014

He was served a memo of charges on 20.03.2015 alleging unauthorized absence, manipulation of attendance registers, and misbehavior with senior officers

Following a departmental inquiry, an inquiry report was submitted on 17.09.2015

Consequently, an order dated 02.03.2016 was passed imposing the punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect and denying salary for the suspension period beyond the subsistence allowance

The petitioner’s appeal was subsequently rejected on 06.10.2016

The petitioner challenged these orders primarily on the ground that the Inquiry Officer improperly assumed the role of the Presenting Officer

1. Whether the departmental proceeding was vitiated due to the non-performance of duties by the Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer acting as an adjudicator and prosecutor simultaneously in violation of Rule 17 of the CCA Rules

2. Whether the orders of punishment and subsequent rejection of appeal are sustainable in law given the procedural lapses

Rules 17(5)(c) and 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which mandate that the Presenting Officer must produce evidence and examine witnesses to prove the charges

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010), establishing that an Inquiry Officer is an independent adjudicator and not a representative of the department

Panchanan Kumar v. Bihar State Electricity Board (1996), which held that an inquiry is vitiated if the Inquiry Officer rolls the roles of both judge and prosecutor into one

The Court observed that although Sri Laldev Chaudhary was appointed as the Presenting Officer, the inquiry report failed to show that he examined any witnesses or presented the department's case

Instead, the Inquiry Officer performed these functions, which directly contravened the mandatory procedure under Rule 17(14) of the CCA Rules

The Court reasoned that by taking over the duties of the Presenting Officer, the Inquiry Officer ceased to be an "independent adjudicator" and acted with bias, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

The Court rejected the respondent's argument that "no prejudice" was caused, holding that such a fundamental departure from statutory rules governing disciplinary proceedings renders the entire process void

The Court quashed the punishment order dated 02.03.2016 and the appellate order dated 06.10.2016. Since the petitioner had retired in 2017, the Court declined to remand the matter for a fresh inquiry and allowed the writ application with all consequential benefits