Punishment Based on No Evidence in Departmental Inquiry is Unsustainable and Violates Principles of Natural Justice

The petitioner, while serving as District Programme Officer (Planning and Accounts) at Saran, reported a fraudulent withdrawal of ₹54,55,800/- from a government bank account via forged signatures and lodged an FIR.

He was subsequently suspended, and departmental proceedings were initiated on three charges involving failure to maintain records and illegal withdrawals.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2019, leading to the conversion of the inquiry into proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

The Inquiry Officer exonerated him of charges 1 and 2 but found charge 3 (illegal withdrawal) proved, despite noting a lack of evidence regarding the petitioner's direct involvement or ill intention.

Consequently, the State issued a notification on 20.09.2021, imposing a permanent 50% pension deduction.

1. Whether the order of punishment passed under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is sustainable in the absence of oral or documentary evidence proved during the inquiry

2. Whether the Inquiry Officer's finding of guilt based on "financial mismanagement" rather than the specific charge of "wrong intention" constitutes a valid basis for punishment

Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which empowers the State to withhold or withdraw pensions in cases of proven misconduct or pecuniary loss.

Departmental inquiries are quasi-judicial proceedings where charges must be proved through evidence; mere production of documents (like an FIR) without examining witnesses to prove their contents does not constitute legal proof (Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570).

Suspicion, however high, cannot substitute for legal proof in a departmental proceeding (Devendra Prasad v. State of Bihar (LPA No. 1302 of 2017)).

The Court observed that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was a "case of no evidence".

It noted that the respondents failed to examine any witnesses to prove the charges or the contents of the documentary evidence cited in the inquiry report.

The Inquiry Officer admitted that the Presenting Officer produced "no strong evidence" showing the petitioner's involvement or "wrong intention" regarding the illegal withdrawals, yet found charge 3 proved based on a conclusion of "failed financial management," which the Court determined was an error in reasoning.

Following the Roop Singh Negi doctrine, the Court held that since the documents were not proved by witnesses, the inquiry report was based on conjectures rather than legal proof.

The Court quashed and set aside the Notification dated 20.09.2021 (Memo No. 428) which had imposed the 50% pension deduction, and directed the respondents to refund any pension amounts already deducted within three months.