Punishment imposed without an enquiry report and second show-cause notice is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner, a Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the Public Health Engineering Department, was appointed in 1979. He remained absent from duty from 1 December 1992 and was in judicial custody from 26 April to 23 May 1993 in connection with a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After his release, he claimed to have submitted his joining on 24 May 1993, but alleged that the authorities did not permit him to resume duty or accept his joining.

He was subsequently suspended on 6 March 1997 and departmental proceedings were initiated for unauthorized absence and non-cooperation. He superannuated on 30 November 2000 while under suspension.

After retirement, the proceeding was converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The first Enquiry Officer retired without submitting an enquiry report, and another Enquiry Officer was appointed in 2005. However, the original records produced before the Court contained no enquiry report or second show-cause notice.

Despite this, the authorities passed Memo No. 382 dated 5 October 2005, denying salary for the relevant period except subsistence allowance and directing that the period would not count as duty. A further order dated 4 January 2013 reaffirmed the denial of benefits.

Whether the orders dated 5 October 2005 and 4 January 2013, imposing or affirming punishment against the petitioner, were legally sustainable when no enquiry report or second show-cause notice was available on record?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to full salary for the period from 1 December 1992 until his retirement on 30 November 2000, despite not having actually worked during that period?

Whether the petitioner’s retiral benefits were required to be recalculated by counting the relevant service period and granting the benefit of A.C.P. from 9 August 1999?

Whether the matter should be remitted to the authorities for a fresh departmental proceeding?

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, particularly the requirement that a disciplinary punishment must be based on a properly conducted enquiry, an enquiry report, and an opportunity to submit a representation against that report.

The Court referred to Rules 55, 99 and 100 of the Bihar Service Code concerning departmental proceedings, suspension and treatment of custody-related absence, and to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules governing post-retirement proceedings affecting pensionary benefits.

The Court relied on Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewary, (2017) 2 SCC 308, for the principle that although the normal course is to remit a procedurally defective disciplinary matter, remand may be declined where the delay and supervening circumstances make a fresh enquiry unfair, harsh or unnecessary.

The Court also referred to State of Bihar v. Vikash Kumar @ Vikas Kumar, L.P.A. No. 446 of 2024, in support of the same approach.

The Court found that the respondents had made reasonable efforts to serve notices at the addresses furnished by the petitioner, and therefore rejected the petitioner’s argument that the proceeding failed merely because notices were not personally received.

However, the decisive defect was that the original departmental records contained no enquiry report, despite the disciplinary authority recording that punishment was being imposed after considering such a report. The Court further found no material showing that a second show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioner. Consequently, the punishment orders were held to have been passed without a valid departmental enquiry and in breach of natural justice.

The Court nevertheless declined to award full salary for the entire period from 1 December 1992 to 30 November 2000 because the petitioner had not actually worked during that period.

It also declined to remit the matter for a fresh enquiry, considering that the petitioner had retired in 2000, approximately twenty-six years had elapsed, and the respondents had already failed to complete the proceeding lawfully despite having the opportunity to do so.

Since the impugned punishment orders could not stand, the Court directed that the petitioner’s service and retiral benefits be recalculated as they would have stood before those orders, including the admitted A.C.P. entitlement from 9 August 1999.

Memo No. 382 dated 5 October 2005 and Memo No. 07 dated 4 January 2013 were quashed as having been issued without a valid departmental enquiry and without compliance with natural justice.

The petitioner was held entitled to consequential service and retiral benefits, including recalculation of his benefits by counting the relevant service from December 1992 and granting A.C.P. benefits from 9 August 1999 until retirement.

However, he was not granted full salary for the period from 1 December 1992 to 30 November 2000 because he had not worked during that period.

The respondents were directed to complete the recalculation and make payment within four months from receipt or production of the judgment.