Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. Bajanthri, Arun Kumar Jha, JJ.
The State of Bihar represented through the Chief Secretary and ors. – Appellants
Versus
Md. Shamim Akhtar, Son of Late Md. Moizuddin and ors. - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.1653 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.723 of 2013
Decided On : 19-01-2023
Disciplinary Authority - Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 - Disciplinary authority's power to amend charge and initiate fresh inquiry - The disciplinary authority does not have the power to amend the charge at the stage of considering the inquiring officer's report. The rules provide the disciplinary authority with the option to either accept or reject the inquiring officer's report, issue a show cause notice, or remand the matter to the inquiring authority. Ordering a fresh inquiry at this stage is not in line with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and the disciplinary authority proceeded to initiate a fresh inquiry or issuance of notice for amending the charge, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority's actions were not in line with the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, and dismissed the appeal by the State.
Issues: The key issue was the disciplinary authority's power to amend the charge and initiate a fresh inquiry at the stage of considering the inquiring officer's report.
Ratio Decidendi: The disciplinary authority does not have the power to amend the charge at the stage of considering the inquiring officer's report, and the rules provide specific options for the disciplinary authority in such situations.
Final Decision: The present Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.
The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the State against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2016 passed in CWJC No. 723 of 2013. Respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on 11.02.2009. Inquiring Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. Disciplinary authority instead of accepting or rejecting the finding of the Inquiring Officer proceeded to initiate fresh inquiry or issuance of notice for amending charge.
2. Perusal of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, it is evident that disciplinary authority has no power to amend the charge at the stage of consideration of inquiring officer's report/finding. The disciplinary authority had option of either accepting or rejecting the finding of the Inquiring Officer's report or in the event of disagreeing with the inquiring officer report or finding. In that event disciplinary authority has option of issuing of show cause notice to the concerned person to the extent of disagreeing with the inquiring officer's report or finding and he had option of remanding the matter to the inquiring authority to commence the inquiry from the defective stage and complete the process of inquiry or he/she can complete the inquiry. On the other hand, in the present case disciplinary authority proceeded to amend the charge and ordering fresh inquiry. Such procedure is not in consonance to the law for the reason that Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 do not provide for such procedure. In fact, the petitioner in para 25 and 56 of the writ petition has specifically contended that ordering fresh inquiry is bad in law.
3. In the light of these legal issues, the appellants-State have not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2016 passed in CWJC No. 7623 of 2013. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.
The disciplinary authority does not have the power to amend the charge at the stage of considering the inquiring officer's report, and must adhere to the options provided in the Bihar Government Serv....
The jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority and the applicability of specific rules to the petitioner's case were the central legal points established in the judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Rules 2001 and Rules 1965 to the case of a Gramin Dak Sevak, highlighting the error committed by the Disciplinary Authority in....
The Disciplinary Authority is bound to proceed strictly in accordance with Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and does not have the power to order....
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot re-evaluate evidence unless there is a violation of due process or lack of evidence.
Violation of procedural rules in disciplinary proceedings leads to nullification of dismissal orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
