Procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings requires the disciplinary authority to provide specific evidence when differing with the enquiry report and imposing punishment.

1. Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners prayer in the present application for quashing the order, contained in notification no. 6159(S), dated 11.9.2004, of the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, whereby the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments of pay with cumulative effect and entry of censure in confidential character roll in the year 2000-2001 have been awarded to the petitioner. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the consequential benefits to this effect to the petitioner.

3. Petitioner was posted as the Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department, Nalanda at Biharsharif, when a departmental proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Two charges were framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding. First charge was that he violated the Model Code of Conduct during election period as reported by the District Magistrate, Biharsharif, as well as the Election Commission of India vide its letter dated 15.2.2001. Second charge was relating to deficiency and undue indulgence in course of sale for bill of quantity on 26.12.2000. Sri Ram Sagar Ram, Secretary, Technical, C.D.O., Road Construction Department, was appointed as conducting officer and Sri Akhauri Birendra Kumar Sinha, Secretary (Non-Technical) to Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, as presenting officer. Petitioner submitted his show cause before the conducting officer denying both the charges.

4. Regarding charge no.1, it was stated in the show cause that petitioner had no information regarding foundation of P.C.C. Road from Mahila College, Biharsharif, to Canara Bank by the local M.L.A. on 29.1.2001. He had not seen any foundation slab on the said place. He was not present in the alleged two photographs which were taken on the occasion, as such, he has not violated the Model Code of Conduct. Regarding charge no. 2, it was submitted that the sale of tender papers on 26.12.2000 at divisional level was first opportunity in his service career. Initially there was some disturbance, as such, he reported the matter to the District Magistrate, the Executive Engineer and the Superintendent Engineer, who were present there. Subsequently, the work of sale of tender paper was done on the same day as per the order of the Superintendent Engineer and the Executive Engineer, as such, the charge no. 2 regarding deficiency and undue indulgence is without any substance.

5. The enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner from both the charges in the enquiry report submitted by him. The conducting officer issued show cause notice to the petitioner as he differed with the enquiry report and finally awarded the punishment of withholding two increments and censure, which is under challenge.

6. Petitioner has challenged the order of punishment stating that it was mandatory for the disciplinary authority to assign reason in writing, in case of disagreement with the considered finding of the enquiry officer. In absence of any ground or reason in the show cause notice, it is an empty formality which has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner and resulted in injustice to him. The second show cause notice simply indicates the charges and the proposed punishment. Nowhere it is mentioned that which are the specific evidence relying on which the disciplinary authority finds it proper to differ with the enquiry report and impose proposed punishment.

7. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, it has been stated that the matter relating to violation of the Model Code of Conduct was reported by the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, Nalanda, to the Election Commission of India. On the direction of the Election Commissioner, charges were very serious the department after reviewing all aspects of the matter decided to initiate a departmental proceeding. Petitioner was asked fo