The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence in disciplinary proceedings and the limitation of the State's power in imposing punishments and invoking recovery acts.

Jyoti Saran, J.

The petitioner prays for quashing of the notification bearing Memo No.3374 dated 28.7.2016 of the State Government in its Social Welfare Department, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been punished with an order of recovery of Rs.50,49,542.50 to be made from her movable/immovable properties by invoking the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the "PDR Act"). A copy of the notification is impugned at Annexure P/1 to the writ petition.

2. The petitioner also questions the resolution bearing Memo No.368 dated 31.1.2013, whereby the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Disciplinary Rules"), by service of a charge memo, a copy of which is impugned at Annexure P/22 to the writ petition.

3. The petitioner has questioned the resolution bearing Memo No.4736 dated 23.9.2013 whereby the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed, a copy of which is enclosed at Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

4. It is on the basis of an audit report submitted in respect of the Child Development Project Officer, Runni Saidpur, district Sitamarhi for the financial year 2003-04 to 2004-05 bearing Audit Report No.101/2007-08 listing alleged financial irregularities against the petitioner in the capacity of Child Development Project Officer that the respondent State in its Social Welfare Department woke up from slumber to initiate a disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the "Disciplinary Rules" on the date of superannuation of the petitioner i.e. 31.1.2013 by service of a charge memo enclosed with the resolution of the State Government bearing Memo No.368 dated 31.1.2013, a copy of which is enclosed at Annexure P/2 to the writ petition. A plain reading of the charge memo would confirm that the foundation for the charge lies on the audit report exclusively for that is the only evidence referred to in the charge memo.

5. According to the respondents, despite service of the charge memo issued under the "Disciplinary Rules", the petitioner failed to respond thereto and thus an ex-parte enquiry report was submitted by the Additional Secretary cum-Conducting Officer, Social Welfare Department on 28.4.2015 vide Annexure P/4 to the writ petition. A second show cause notice was served on the petitioner to which she filed her reply on 23.6.2015 vide Annexure P/22 and which has resulted in the punishment order impugned directing recovery of an amount of Rs.50,49,542.50 stated to be the amount misappropriated by the petitioner while serving as a Child Development Project Officer, Runni Saidpur, District-Sitamarhi.

6. It is not in dispute that following another disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner for alleged misconduct during her tenure as Child Development Project Officer, Dholi, that she has been visited with the punishment of forfeiture of 90% of her pension vide notification bearing Memo No.3373 dated 28.7.2016 of the State Government in purported exercise of powers vested under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "Pension Rules"), a copy of which is at Annexure "A" to the counter affidavit of the respondents and which punishment order is pending adjudication in CWJC No.8002 of 2017 as manifest from the statement made in paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.

7. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while questioning the entire proceedings on merits, has questioned the punishment order on grounds noted in the order recorded on 15.05.2018 which runs under :

" . .

(a) No evidence either oral or documentary was led to support the charge;

(b) Although the petitioner was not intimated about the proceeding nor the charge memo was served on her but even if the proceedings w