The court emphasized the importance of considering the employee's representation and the need for a reasoned order in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Writ petition has been filed for quashing notification contained in Memo no. 1231(9) H Pat dated 5.12.2017 by which respondents have inflicted punishment by which the period since May, 2014 to 10.5.2016 (annexure 9) during which petitioner was found to be on unauthorized absence and will not be counted for calculation of pension. Further, punishment has been imposed for stoppage of three increment without cumulative effect and lastly withholding of promotion for 10 years.

2. While the petitioner was posted as the Medical officer at Veer Additional Primary Health Centre, Dhanarua in the Patna District, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide resolution contained in memo no. 505(9) dated 10.5.2016 (Annexure 9). Additional Director was appointed conducting officer, whereas the in-charge Medical Officer, Dhanarua was appointed as Presenting officer in the said departmental proceedings. Petitioner appeared and submitted his reply and thereafter enquiry report was submitted on 9.12.2016 (Annexure 10). None of the charges were found proved by the conducting officer. However, the Disciplinary Authority differing with the same issued second show cause vide letter dated 28.6.2017 (Annexure 11) which was duly replied by the petitioner on 10.7.2017 (Annexure 12) and 3.8.2017 (Annexure 13). After consideration of the same, impugned order of punishment was passed.

3. Assailing the impugned order of punishment dated 10.5.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the memo of charge was prepared and submitted by the in-charge Medical Officer, Dhanarua, who was junior to the petitioner. He submits that the in-charge Medical Officer, being junior to the petitioner, is not a competent authority for preparation of charge memo in light of provisions of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and on this score alone, the departmental proceeding is fit to be quashed at the initial stage itself. Another defence of the petitioner is that the punishment order has been inflicted on the petitioner without consideration of his second show cause reply as in terms of Rule 19 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, authorities were required to consider and discuss the explanation submitted by the petitioner before passing the punishment order. In support of the submissions, he relies upon decisions in case of Niranjan Kumar Dutta Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2019(2) PLJR 983; Dr. Chandan Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2018(2) PLJR 205 and a judgment of coordinate bench of this Court passed in case of Upendra Prasad Mandal Vs. the State of Bihar and others (C.W.J.C. No. 22251 of 2018).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supports the impugned order and submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality as the same has been passed after following due procedure of law and also after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner for defending himself in the enquiry proceeding as well as in the departmental proceeding.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and perused the materials available on the record.

6. On going through the resolution contained in Memo no. 505(9) dated 10.5.2026 (Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2), it is apparent that the departmental proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 in which a senior official of the Health Department, namely, Dr. Radhakant Singh, Additional Director, Family Welfare Department, Bihar was appointed as conducting officer and an authorized officer of the Civil Surgeon, Patna was appointed as Presenting Officer. Memo of charge was also sent to the petitioner along with this resolution (Annexure A to the counter affidavit). In view of Annexure A to the counter affidavit, defence of the petitioner that, in contravention of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, charge memo had been prepared by the in-charge Medical Officer, who was junio