Punishment based on an enquiry report lacking evidence, witness examination, and second show cause notice is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Building Construction Department, was suspended on 09.07.2012 following allegations by the District Magistrate, Madhubani.

Departmental proceedings were initiated, and a memo of charges was issued on 27.07.2012.

Despite the petitioner denying all charges, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 19.07.2013 finding him guilty.

Subsequently, the disciplinary authority issued the impugned notification (Memo no. 12581) dated 10.09.2013, awarding punishments including a censure, withholding of 5 increments, and non-payment of salary for the suspension period, without serving a second show-cause notice or providing the enquiry report.

1. Whether the departmental proceeding was vitiated by the failure to provide a list of witnesses and the non-examination of witnesses to prove the charges.

2. Whether the non-supply of the enquiry report and the failure to issue a second show-cause notice violated the principles of natural justice and Bihar CCA Rules.

3. Whether the order regarding non-payment of salary for the suspension period was valid without a specific notice under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code.

The court applied Rules 17 and 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, which mandate providing a list of witnesses [Rule 17(3)], granting opportunity to cross-examine [Rule 17(14)], and serving the enquiry report to the delinquent [Rule 18(3)].

Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code regarding the procedure for pay during suspension.

Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks regarding the maintainability of writs despite alternative remedies in cases of natural justice violations.

Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain v. NMC regarding the requirement of fresh notice for charges not originally framed.

The court found that the department failed to provide a list of witnesses as required by Rule 17(3), and the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty solely based on documents without oral evidence or cross-examination.

The court observed that the Enquiry Officer erroneously "assumed the role of the prosecution" by proving charges himself without the Presenting Officer producing evidence.

Critically, the disciplinary authority admitted to not serving the enquiry report or a second show-cause notice, which the court held as a "complete violation of the principles of natural justice" making the order without jurisdiction.

Regarding the deprivation of full salary for the suspension period, the court noted this was not part of the original charges and could not be imposed without a specific notice under Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code.

The writ petition was allowed and respondents were directed to: (i) calculate and pay the withheld increments; (ii) pay all benefits denied due to the impugned order; and (iii) pay full salary for the suspension period (less subsistence allowance already paid) within four months.