The main legal point established in the judgment is that departmental inquiries must be conducted in accordance with the relevant rules and provisions, and failure to do so can result in the setting aside of penalty orders.

JUDGMENT :

P. B. Bajanthri, J.

In the instant L.P.A., appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.08.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14330 of 2010.

2. The appellant while working as a Junior Engineer was subjected to disciplinary proceeding in framing Article of charges on 28.05.2006, the appellant had submitted his explanation by denying the alleged charges. The disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the appellant's explanation and proceeded to appoint Inquiring and Presenting Officer. The Inquiring Officer submitted report on 06.02.2007, in which he has held that charges levelled against the appellant were proved. Based on the Inquiring Officer's report, disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice along with the Inquiring Officer's report on 08.03.2007. The appellant had submitted his explanation on the Inquiring Officer's report and second show cause notice on 08.04.2007. He has attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.09.2007. Having regard to the fact that he has attained the age of superannuation and retired from service, pending departmental inquiry was converted under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules on 25.03.2008 and proceeded to issue show cause notice on 11.03.2010 to the extent of deduction of pension and withholding of gratuity amount. The appellant had submitted his reply on 09.04.2010, thereafter concerned authority proceeded to impose the penalty on 02.07.2010. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the penalty order dated 02.07.2010, the appellant had submitted representation/memorial on 16.04.2010 and it was rejected on 10.08.2010, hence the C.W.J.C. No. 14330 of 2010 was filed.

3. The learned Single Judge has rejected the appellant's C.W.J.C., hence the present L.P.A.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that incompetent authority has passed the penalty order, namely, Chief Engineer. The aforesaid contention has been taken note on the previous date read with the records that the State Government has taken decision to impose the penalty of deduction of pension and withholding of gratuity, in other words, Chief Engineer has only communicated the decision of the State Government, therefore, the aforesaid contention is not tenable.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that only one document has been cited along with the charge memo and there is no list of witnesses. In other words, the alleged charge has not been proved, known to the manner in law. In other words, there is non-compliance to various Sub-rules of Rule 17 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent resisted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that there is compliance to the provisions of CCA Rules. It is submitted that only one document which suffice to prove the charge the same was presented by the Presenting Officer before the Inquiring Authority and Inquiring Authority has held that the charge levelled against the appellant was proved, therefore, there is no infirmity in the penalty order dated 10.08.2010 and also in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.08.2018.

7. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

8. Core question for consideration in the present appeal is whether departmental inquiry was held against the appellant was in accordance with Rule 17 and other ancillary provisions of the CCA Rules or not? Undisputed facts are that along with the charge memo only one document has been cited and no list of witnesses was provided. That apart the Presenting Officer presented the sole document in support of alleged charge. Such a procedure is contrary to various Sub-rules of Rule 17, the Disciplinary Authority/Inquiring Authority has failed to follow Sub-rules of Rule 17 and various provisions of CCA Rules 2005. Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, held that in an inquiry if the Presenting Officer is relying on any document in support of the charg