Major Penalty or Pension Reduction Based Solely on Documents Without Examining Witnesses is Legally Unsustainable

The petitioner, while serving as Director of WALMI, held additional charge as Engineer-in-Chief of the Water Resources Department, Bihar, starting 29.06.2009

Following his retirement on 30.09.2014, the Department initiated a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, alleging excess payments in the Nepal Hitkari Scheme due to negligence in supervision

An enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 22.02.2016 holding the charges proved

Consequently, the disciplinary authority issued a notification dated 11.04.2017, inflicting a punishment of permanent withholding of 50% of the petitioner’s pension and attributed a loss of Rs. 8.99 crore to him

A review application against this order was rejected on 19.03.2018

1. Whether the departmental proceeding was conducted in violation of the mandatory legal procedure, specifically regarding the examination of witnesses to prove documentary evidence

2. Whether the disciplinary authority acted beyond its jurisdiction by attributing a specific financial loss (Rs. 8.99 crore) that was not part of the original memorandum of charges

3. Whether the impugned punishment order was a reasoned order or suffered from non-application of mind

Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which mandates that proceedings against a pensioner must follow the same procedure as a dismissal proceeding

Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009), establishing that departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial and documents must be proved through witnesses rather than mere production

Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), reiterating that recording of oral evidence is mandatory in cases of major penalties where facts are disputed

The Court found the enquiry fundamentally flawed as the memorandum of charges lacked a list of witnesses, and no witnesses were examined to prove the contents of the reports relied upon by the State

Applying the Roop Singh Negi principle, the court held that documentary evidence cannot be treated as proven without competent testimony

the court noted that the petitioner held administrative charge and the enquiry failed to establish a direct nexus between his duties and the alleged execution irregularities handled by Executive and Chief Engineers

Significantly, the disciplinary authority "travelled beyond the scope of the charges" by introducing an allegation of Rs. 8.99 crore financial loss at the punishment stage, which violated principles of natural justice as the petitioner never had the chance to defend against that specific figure

The disciplinary authority further failed to pass a reasoned order, merely reproducing the enquiry report without considering the petitioner's specific defense

The High Court set aside the Notification No. 506 dated 11.04.2017 (withholding 50% pension)

The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to extend all admissible consequential benefits to the petitioner within ten weeks