Proceedings founded on charge memos violating mandatory regulations are vitiated.

The petitioner, a Statistics Supervisor posted at Ben Block, Nalanda, was deputed as In-charge of the Ben Paddy Procurement Centre for the 2012–13 Kharif Marketing Season.

Following a district-level decision, procured paddy was stored in private godowns of the concerned PACS under the custody of their Chairmen, and rice millers were permitted to lift the paddy through their own vehicles.

The respondents alleged that 9,645.83 quintals of paddy remained unaccounted for and had been misappropriated, and further alleged a shortage of 1,400 quintals in respect of one rice mill, resulting in a total alleged shortage of 11,045.83 quintals.

The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, which was affirmed by the appellate authority.

Whether the departmental proceeding could be sustained when the articles of charge were not framed in accordance with the Bihar Framing of Articles of Charge against the Government Servants Regulations, 2011 or the Regulations, 2017?

Whether the dismissal order and appellate order, having been founded upon the defective charge memorandum and consequential enquiry proceeding, were legally sustainable?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits, subject to the respondents’ liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding in accordance with law?

The Court applied the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which govern disciplinary proceedings against government servants, including the prescribed procedure for framing charges and conducting enquiries.

It further applied the Bihar Framing of Articles of Charge against the Government Servants Regulations, 2011, notified on 31 January 2011, which were applicable when the charge memorandum was issued in 2016.

The Court also considered the corresponding Regulations, 2017, which were in force when the enquiry commenced in 2021.

The governing rule was that disciplinary charges must be framed in accordance with the applicable statutory regulations; a proceeding founded on charges that comply with neither the 2011 Regulations nor the 2017 Regulations cannot be sustained.

The Court focused on the validity of the charge memoranda annexed as Annexures 3 and 4 rather than adjudicating the factual allegations concerning the alleged shortage or misappropriation of paddy.

It noted that Annexure 3 was undated and Annexure 4 was dated 14 September 2016, when the 2011 Regulations were operative.

Although the enquiry commenced in 2021, when the 2017 Regulations were in force, the charge memoranda had not been prepared in accordance with either regulatory framework.

Since the entire enquiry, including the enquiry report dated 29 October 2021 and the punishment order, proceeded on the basis of those defective charges, the Court held that the defect was foundational and vitiated the departmental proceeding.

The Court set aside the original dismissal order bearing Memo No. 637 dated 11 April 2022, the appellate order bearing Memo No. 245 dated 12 July 2022, the departmental enquiry and the enquiry report dated 29 October 2021.

The petitioner was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

The respondents were granted liberty to initiate a fresh disciplinary proceeding, if so advised, provided that the charges were framed strictly in accordance with law and the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 and the Regulations, 2017. Any such proceeding was directed to be completed within 90 days.