Patna HC Sets Aside Draftsman’s Dismissal Over Defective Charge Memo, Orders Outstanding Dues And Retiral Benefits If Retired

The petitioner, a Draftsman in the Water Resources Department, was proceeded against departmentally.

A charge memo dated 12 July 2019 directed him to submit his defence before the Inquiry Officer. Following the inquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment by order dated 26 October 2019.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court set aside that order for failure to comply with Rule 18(4) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, and remanded the matter for consideration of the petitioner’s reply to the second show-cause notice.

On remand, the disciplinary authority passed a fresh dismissal order dated 28 February 2023; the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on 30 June 2023.

The petitioner challenged both orders, arguing that the charge memo and disciplinary procedure violated the 2005 Rules and the Bihar Framing of Articles of Charge against Government Servants Regulations, 2017.

Rule 17(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 requires the disciplinary authority to frame definite and distinct articles of charge, supported by a statement of imputations and lists of relevant documents and witnesses. Rule 17(4) requires the disciplinary authority to provide those materials to the government servant and require a written statement of defence within a specified time. Under Rule 17(5), the disciplinary authority may inquire into the charges itself or appoint an inquiry authority; Rule 17(6) specifies the records to be forwarded to the inquiry authority.

Regulations 2 and 3 of the Bihar Framing of Articles of Charge against Government Servants Regulations, 2017 prescribe the form and four-part structure of charge articles.

The Court also applied the principle that, when reviewing the legality of the impugned decision, it should examine the challenge in its totality rather than restrict review to one aspect of the proceedings.

The Court examined the charge memo and found that it directed the petitioner to submit his defence to the Inquiry Officer, rather than requiring him to submit a written statement of defence as contemplated by Rule 17(4). It further found that the charge memo did not comply with the structure prescribed by the 2017 Regulations and that the State offered no substantive answer to the identified defect.

The Court rejected the State’s contention that the earlier remand confined the present challenge to consideration of the second-show-cause reply, holding that the legality of the fresh order had to be assessed in its totality.

It set aside the disciplinary order dated 28 February 2023 and the appellate order dated 30 June 2023. The respondents were directed to pay the petitioner’s outstanding dues and, if he had retired, his retiral benefits within three months from production of the order. The writ petition was allowed.