Failure to record reasoned disagreement under Rule 18(2) vitiates the disciplinary punishment.

The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was proceeded against departmentally for alleged delay and inadequate disposal of cases during his posting as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Town), Muzaffarpur.

Following a show-cause notice and the petitioner’s reply, a departmental charge memorandum was issued under Memo No. 6328 dated 2 August 2019.

The Conducting Officer submitted enquiry reports dated 4 May 2021 and 22 December 2021, both of which found the charges against the petitioner not proved.

The disciplinary authority disagreed with the enquiry findings and issued a second show-cause notice dated 11 April 2022.

The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, but the disciplinary authority imposed the penalties of censure and withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect by order dated 11 October 2022.

The petitioner’s review petition was dismissed on 23 December 2022.

Whether the disciplinary authority could disagree with the Conducting Officer’s findings that the charges were not proved?

Whether the disciplinary authority complied with Rule 18(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 while disagreeing with the enquiry findings?

Whether the punishment order was sustainable when the petitioner’s reply to the second show-cause notice was not meaningfully considered?

The Court applied Rule 18(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which permits the disciplinary authority to disagree with the Enquiry Authority but requires it to record reasons for such disagreement and its own finding on the charge, provided the evidence on record is sufficient for that purpose.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice and reasoned decision-making, requiring the disciplinary authority to consider and deal with the delinquent employee’s explanation before imposing punishment.

The Court held that the disciplinary authority had jurisdiction to disagree with the Conducting Officer, even though the petitioner had been exonerated in both enquiry reports.

However, the power of disagreement was subject to the mandatory requirements of Rule 18(2).

On examining the disagreement memorandum, the Court found that although points of disagreement were mentioned, the disciplinary authority did not adequately record the reasons for disagreement or independently assess whether the evidence was sufficient to support its own finding on the charges.

The Court also found that the punishment order failed to meaningfully address the specific grounds raised by the petitioner in his reply to the second show-cause notice, which was particularly significant because the Conducting Officer had twice found the charges unproved.

Consequently, the statutory and procedural safeguards had not been satisfied.

It accordingly set aside the second show-cause notice dated 11 April 2022, the punishment order dated 11 October 2022 imposing censure and withholding of one increment, and the review order dated 23 December 2022.

The writ petition was allowed.