Non-Examination of Witnesses and Non-Supply of Witness List Vitiates Departmental Proceedings and Consequential Punishment

The petitioner, a retired District Mass Education Officer, challenged an order dated 25.07.2014 which imposed a 5% pension deduction following a departmental proceeding.

The proceeding was initiated just before his retirement (30.06.2010) regarding alleged irregularities in compassionate appointments made while he was posted in Purnia.

The petitioner contended that the appointments were made following directions from the District Magistrate and recommendations of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee.

After his retirement, the proceedings were converted into a pension proceeding under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

The Enquiry Officer found some charges proved and others partially proved based on comments from the Presenting Officer, leading to the impugned punishment.

1. Whether the departmental proceeding and subsequent punishment were vitiated by procedural irregularities and violation of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.

2. Whether a proceeding under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules can be sustained in the absence of a finding of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss.

Rules 17(3), 17(4), and 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which mandate providing a list of witnesses with the charge sheet and ensuring witnesses are examined to prove documents.

Principles from Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009), establishing that departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial and charges must be proved by evidence, not surmises.

State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010), emphasizing that an Enquiry Officer must act as an independent adjudicator and not a prosecutor.

Jai Prakash Saini v. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. (2024), which held that unless a delinquent accepts guilt, the department must lead oral evidence to prove charges and documents.

The Court found that the Department failed to provide a list of witnesses along with the memo of charges (and supplementary charges), violating Rule 17(3) and (4).

During the inquiry, no witnesses were examined to prove the relied-upon documents; the Enquiry Officer arrived at findings solely based on the "comments/opinion" of the Presenting Officer.

This denied the petitioner the mandatory opportunity for cross-examination under Rule 17(14).

The disciplinary authority acted mechanically, rejecting the petitioner’s second show-cause reply without assigning sufficient reasons or considering the merits of his defense regarding the District Magistrate's orders.

Since there was no proof of "grave misconduct" or "pecuniary loss," the conversion into a Rule 43(B) proceeding was also questioned.

The Court quashed the impugned order (Memo No. 488 dated 25.07.2014) and directed the State to restore the petitioner's 100% pension and refund the 5% amount already deducted from the date of deduction until the date of payment.