Punishment Based on Surmises Without Legal Evidence or Examination of Material Witnesses is Legally Unsustainable

The petitioner, a Peon (Class-IV employee) in the Block Development Office, Katra, was suspended and subjected to a departmental inquiry on charges including alcohol consumption and misconduct

During the inquiry, the Presenting Officer and nine witnesses failed to support the allegations, stating they had no knowledge of the occurrence

Despite no evidence being led, the Inquiry Officer found several charges proved based on the complainant’s allegations

Consequently, the District Magistrate (Disciplinary Authority) imposed a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and restricted pay to subsistence allowance for the suspension period

The petitioner’s statutory appeal was rejected by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division

The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash these orders

1. Whether the disciplinary authority’s order was legally sustainable when based on an inquiry report that lacked evidence

2. Whether the departmental proceeding and the order regarding suspension pay violated the principles of natural justice and statutory rules

The court primarily applied the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, specifically Rule 17 regarding the procedure for inquiry and Rule 11(5) regarding suspension pay

Departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial, findings must be based on legally admissible evidence rather than "ipse dixit" or conjectures, and the standard of proof is the "preponderance of probability" [Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570]

Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code regarding the necessity of a show-cause notice before forfeiting salary

The Court observed that the inquiry was a "no evidence" case; none of the nine witnesses supported the prosecution, and the complainant (the then BDO) was never examined

Under the Bihar CCA Rules, specifically Rule 17, the burden of proof lies with the department. The Inquiry Officer erroneously relied on personal presumption rather than proof

The Court noted that even under the "preponderance of probability" standard, there must be some evidence to tip the scale; suspicion cannot substitute legal proof

Furthermore, the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority failed to provide reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s explanations, rendering the orders mechanical and in violation of natural justice

Regarding the forfeiture of salary for the suspension period, the Court found it procedurally defective as no show-cause notice was issued under Rule 11(5) of the CCA Rules or Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code

As the petitioner had already superannuated, the Court declined to remit the matter for a fresh inquiry, noting that a remand would "offer a premium to the negligence" of the authority. The Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner all withheld increments and pay the full salary for the suspension period within four months