2. Another allegedly corrupt government servant would be succeeding in his litigation because of the ignorance of the Disciplinary Authority as regarding the mandatory procedure underlying the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Disciplinary Rules’).

3. It is about time that the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar takes appropriate steps to train its officers discharging functions of a Disciplinary Authority for unless they have the time and inclination to go through ‘the Disciplinary Rules’ and understand the procedures prescribed therein, these disciplinary proceedings are proving a mockery.

4. It is because of such laches of the Disciplinary Authorities and their ignorance about the statutory procedure mandated under the ‘Disciplinary Rules’ that government servants facing serious corruption charges, succeed in the litigations. The matter is very serious and requires serious attention because the case in hand is not an isolated example rather this Court is burdened with matters clothed with statutory violations.

5. The petitioner is facing serious charges of allegedly being apprehended while taking bribe for giving a favourable order under the Indira Awas Yojana. A copy of the charge memo served on the petitioner is enclosed at Annexure-3 and no less than 5 charges all on corruption, are levelled against the petitioner relying upon the vigilance enquiry which is the foundation for such disciplinary proceeding. The charge of being allegedly caught red-handed while accepting bribe which led to institution of Vigilance P.S. Case No.53 of 2011 dated 5.8.2011 registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is also the foundation for the disciplinary proceeding in question.

6. In my opinion, if the department was serious enough to proceed departmentally against the petitioner they would have paid more attention to the order of initiation of proceeding dated 3.1.2014 as well as in framing of the charge memo both of which are de hors the provisions underlying rule 17(3) of ‘the Disciplinary Rules’ which, inter alia, describes the manner in which a charge memo is to be framed and which is to include:—

(a) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour as a definite and distinct article of charge;

(b) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge;

(c) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession of the Government Servant; and

(d) a list of such document, witnesses by whom the articles of charge is to be framed.

7. In so far as the present case is concerned, the charge memo simply refers to the vigilance enquiry report with no oral witnesses named therein.

8. The second default committed by the Disciplinary Authority is of not following the provisions underlying rule 17(4) of ‘the Disciplinary Rules’ which, inter alia, requires the Disciplinary Authority to ask a show cause on the charge memo from the delinquent and also of hearing him in person, before the Disciplinary Authority takes the decision whether the matter requires further enquiry in the manner prescribed or the explanation is worthy of acceptance.

9. In so far as the present case is concerned, the order initiating proceeding at Annexure-3 simply directs the petitioner to file his reply before the Conducting Officer which is contrary to the stipulations present at rule 17(4) of ‘the Disciplinary Rules’ and has come up for criticism by a Division Bench of this Court while considering similar provisions under the ‘Disciplinary Rules’ then in existence, in a judgment reported in 1996(2) PLJR 95 (Ravindra Nath Singh Vs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation) and the observations made in paragraph 6 of the judgment squarely would apply to the case in hand.—

“6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and