IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to established procedural rules and principles of natural justice; vague charges without supporting evidence can invalidate the inquiry and any resultant penalties.

JUDGMENT :

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

The Appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.04.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1263 of 1999. During the pendency of the present L.P.A., appellant has died and legal heirs of deceased Syed Nabi Karim-Appellant have been brought on record. Deceased Syed Nabi Karim, who was working as a Typist Category-I in the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (Now known as Bihar Distribution Company Limited, Patna, the successor body) (hereinafter referred to as the Board). Deceased employee was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and charge was framed on 18.06.1995. The extract of the Charge Memo reads as under:

2. The article of charge is supported by two witnesses and two documents. It does not contain statement of imputation. The respondents are stated to have initiated departmental inquiry and it was concluded in imposition of penalty of dismissal from service on 04.05.1996. It was subject matter of appeal before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority affirmed the order of dismissal on 29.01.1998. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the disciplinary and Appellate authorities, deceased employee invoked remedy of filing C.W.J.C. No. 1263 of 1999 under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. The learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the aforementioned writ petition on 21.04.2015, hence the present L.P.A.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently, contended that learned Single Judge has not appreciated that article of charge was issued under Clause-29 of the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, standing orders (for short standing orders). It is submitted that the relevant Clause for the purpose of initiation of inquiry with reference to the alleged charge should have been under Clause 29 (B)(c) and not (q). The alleged charge is that deceased employee furnished medical reimbursement bill (claiming on behalf of his wife). It is alleged that petitioner has played fraud in claiming the medical reimbursement. Arising out of the alleged charge, the respondents are of the view that deceased employee was paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/-in advance towards taking treatment in deceased’s wife name for which petitioner has failed to give account. Such statement cannot be taken into consideration for the reasons that reading of the aforementioned article of charge does not specify on what date petitioner has claimed medical reimbursement bill and amount and bill has not been cited as a document to prove that the deceased employee has played fraud. It is also submitted that charge is too vague. Further it is submitted that for the purpose of holding departmental/domestic inquiry, the respondents were required to comply four stages in terms of Clause-30 of the standing orders. In the first stage (2) certain documents were required to be furnished. In the second stage, the opening sentence is relating to “on perusal of the explanation, if any, of the workman and the comments, if any, of the reporting officer and the documentary evidence, if any, if the competent authority considers that”. Having regard to the alleged charge that crucial document is medical bill insofar as reimbursement is not cited as a document. In absence of such document, the r