Post-2005 Disciplinary Enquiries Do Not Require Affidavit-Backed Complaints Under Repealed 2005 Circulars

The petitioner, an officer of the Bihar Administrative Service, challenged the initiation and continuation of a departmental proceeding initiated via Prapatra-Ka dated 21.02.2019.

The proceeding was based on a complaint following his transfer from Bhagalpur.

The petitioner contended that the proceeding was perverse because the complaint lacked a supporting affidavit as required by Circular No. 945 dated 24.06.2005.

The petitioner argued that the proceeding violated the timeline prescribed by the General Administration Department's letter dated 26.02.2014, which mandated conclusion within 12 months, whereas this matter remained pending after several years.

1. Whether a departmental proceeding is vitiated if the underlying complaint is not supported by an affidavit as per Circular No. 945 of 2005.

2. Whether the delay in concluding the departmental proceeding beyond the prescribed administrative timeline warrants the quashing of the proceeding.

Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 2005 ("Bihar CCA Rules, 2005"), specifically Rule 17(2) regarding the Disciplinary Authority's discretion to inquire into misconduct.

Rule 32 (Saving Clause) of the Bihar CCA Rules, which stipulates that earlier laws and notifications inconsistent with these rules are repealed.

Administrative guidelines regarding time limits for departmental inquiries issued by the General Administration Department via Letter No. 2763 dated 26.02.2014.

The court rejected the petitioner's reliance on Circular No. 945 (dated 24.06.2005), noting that the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, which came into effect on 13.07.2005, effectively repealed prior inconsistent circulars under Rule 32.

Upon interpreting Rule 17(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, the court found that the Disciplinary Authority has broad discretion to initiate an inquiry if they are of the "opinion" that grounds exist; the rule imposes no requirement that such grounds be based strictly on an affidavit.

Regarding the procedural delay, while the court acknowledged the 12-month timeline set by the 2014 administrative letter, it determined that such delays do not automatically invalidate the proceeding, especially when the matter has reached the evidence stage.

The court held that the 2005 Circular was no longer applicable and that the Disciplinary Authority acted within its legal discretion.

The court directed the respondent authorities to conclude the departmental proceeding within six months from the date of the order, contingent upon the petitioner's full cooperation.