Non-service of inquiry report and second show cause notice violates Rule 18(3) of Bihar CCA Rules, vitiating dismissal.

The petitioner, a Constable posted at Buxar, was accused of negligence following the disappearance of 50 cartridges during an EVM security deployment.

An enquiry report dated 28.02.2012 led to the registration of Town P.S. Case No. 57 of 2012 and the petitioner’s subsequent arrest.

While in custody from 28.02.2012 to 03.07.2012, a departmental proceeding (No. 17/2012) was initiated.

The petitioner alleged that the Memo of Charge was never served and the enquiry was conducted ex-parte while he was in jail.

Following the Enquiry Officer’s report, the Disciplinary Authority terminated the petitioner's services on 25.08.2015.

Subsequent appeals to the D.I.G. and a Memorial to the Director General of Police (DGP) were rejected.

The petitioner challenged these orders on grounds of procedural irregularity and lack of parity with a co-accused, Rohit Kumar, whose termination was set aside by the High Court.

1. Whether the departmental proceeding and the subsequent termination order were vitiated by the non-service of the Memo of Charge and the conduct of an ex-parte enquiry without providing the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend himself.

2. Whether the termination order was legally sustainable given the failure of the Disciplinary Authority to serve the second show-cause notice and the enquiry report upon the petitioner.

Principle of Natural Justice and the statutory provisions of Rule 18(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which mandates that the Disciplinary Authority must provide a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee to enable them to represent against the findings before a penalty is imposed.

The precedent set in the case of a co-accused, Rohit Kumar v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 10822 of 2015), which established that the failure to serve an enquiry report constitutes a fatal procedural flaw requiring the matter to be remitted to the stage of service of the report.

The Court observed that the Memo of Charge was issued while the petitioner was in custody, and there was no evidence on record proving service upon him or that he was given an opportunity to file a clarification.

Although the State contended that notices were sent, the Court noted the petitioner was in jail for a significant portion of the enquiry.

Crucially, the Court found that the Disciplinary Authority passed the termination order without serving the enquiry report or a second show-cause notice, directly violating Rule 18(3) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005.

The Court further noted that the DGP failed to provide the petitioner parity with co-accused Rohit Kumar, who had been reinstated following similar procedural lapses, despite specific directions from the High Court in a previous writ petition to consider that very parity.

Consequently, it quashed the termination order dated 25.08.2015, the appellate order dated 14.05.2016, and the DGP’s orders dated 13.12.2016 and 24.09.2019.

The Court remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority with directions to proceed afresh from the "defective stage"—specifically the issuance of the second show-cause notice along with the enquiry report.

The entire exercise is ordered to be completed within six months.