Violation of procedural rules under the Bihar CCA Rules can vitiate disciplinary proceedings and result in the quashing of the enquiry report and consequential actions.

1. Heard counsels for the petitioner and the respondents.

2. While holding additional charge as Circle Inspector in the Circle, Chanan, the petitioner was arrested in a trap case for the allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for some mutation related work. He was arrested on 27.08.2008 and remanded to the judicial custody.

3. On the same allegation, one charge memo dated 23.03.2010 was served on the petitioner along with evidence. In support of the allegation, a separate charge memo was also submitted which is dated 28.01.2014.

4. Perusal of the charge memo and supplementary charge memo shows that other than the pre-trap/post-trap memorandum, the FIR and other documents of the Vigilance Department relating to the vigilance case which is still pending, no other documents or witnesses have been referred to, in the charge memo. On the basis of such charge memo, the petitioner was subjected to a proceeding wherein he denied the allegations. The proceeding was concluded and the Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 29.03.2014 which is at Annexure 5 of the writ petition. The allegations and the response of the petitioner have been considered in the enquiry report. However, the same does not manifest that the Presenting Officer who was the Circle Officer, Chanan has presented the case on behalf of the Department. No evidence either documentary or oral has been placed before the Enquiry Officer. On the contrary the enquiry report has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of opinion of the Presenting Officer and relying upon the pre-trap/post-trap memorandum as also relying upon the signature of the witnesses on search document in the vigilance case. In the proceedings a finding of guilt has been recorded against the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the enquiry report itself it is evident that the same is in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Bihar Government Servants (Control, Classification & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Bihar CCA Rules”), specifically Rules 17 and 18 thereof.

6. There is no reference to any oral or documentary evidence on the basis of which the articles of charges were proved. In fact even at the prior stage i.e., the stage of issuance of charge memo other than the documents in relation to the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner which is yet to be decided, no oral or documentary evidence has been indicated on the basis of which the department proposed to prove the articles of charges. It is also noticed that no witness has been examined in support of the said documents or to even otherwise support the charges on behalf of the department.

7. Perusal of the enquiry report shows that this is a case of no evidence and it appears from the enquiry report that merely by obtaining opinion of the Presenting Officer, findings of guilt has been recorded against the petitioner. The procedure therefore, is in violation of Rule 17 (14) of the Bihar CCA Rules. Said points have been raised by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority in his response to the second show cause dated 12.04.2014.

8. This Court finds that the issue has specifically been raised from Paras 5 to 9 of the petitioner’s response to the second show cause. The disciplinary authority without addressing these issues, has passed the order of punishment against the petitioner. Although such submission of the petitioner that the proceeding was conducted without reference to any evidence whatsoever has been recorded in the order of the Disciplinary Authority. However, the order of the Disciplinary Authority concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer does not show any consideration of the said submission of the petitioner.

9. In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court finds that a case of no evidence is made out. Even though strict standard of proof is not applicable to a departm