Disciplinary proceedings require sufficient evidence to support allegations of misconduct; lack of evidence renders the proceedings flawed.

JUDGMENT :

Purnendu Singh, J.

Heard Mr. Kumar Ravish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned Senior counsel along with Mr. Nikesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner, in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition, has sought, inter alia, the following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

“01) By way of this writ application being filed invoking the extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdicftion of this Hon'ble Court, the sole petitioner, most humbly seeks for following reliefs before this Hon'ble Court:-

(i) To quash and set aside by issuing the writ of certiorari the punishment order dated 23.11.2011 contained in Annexure-11 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was imposed with major penalty of censure and withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect;

(ii) To quash and set aside by issuing the writ of certiorari the order dated 02.03.2012 as contained in Annexure-13/a passed pursuant to appeal dated 16.01.2012 as contained in Annexure- 12 whereby and whereunder the order passed by the disciplinary authority was affirmed;

(iii) To quash and set aside the enquiry report dated 19.11.2010 as contained in Annexure-7 whereby and whereunder the enquiry officer recorded that the charge against the petitioner was proved;

(iv) As a consequence of grant of relief (i) and (ii) direct the Respondents-Bihar State Electricity Board to delete the punishment of Censure as also to revive the annual increment (s);

(v) To pay cost of the litigation throughout, and (vi) Any other relief or reliefs which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

BRIEF FACTS

3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of audit conducted in respect of Financial Years 1999-2000, 2000- 2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, the auditor had objected that during Financial Year 1999-2000, the petitioner had committed misconduct by not carrying forward the electricity bills due to altogether 19 consumers. Based on the audit report, the petitioner was served with the imputation of charges along with list of evidences, as well as, the witnesses that the petitioner was posted as Accountant Assistant, during the Financial Year 1999-2000 at Cycle No. 19. In support of the said allegation, a communication contained in letter no.1651 dated 26.11.2007 under the signature of Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division (Urban), Gaya is supported with the imputation of charges. The petitioner has contradicted the same on the basis of the fact that the petitioner was never made in-charge of Cycle No.19 during the said period, however, on his demand, information was given to the petitioner contained in Memo No.339 dated 05.02.2009 by the Joint Secretary that the petitioner has been held liable for loss of sum of Rs.1,30,484.60/- for not carrying forward the amount of dues in respect of altogether 19 consumers while he was posted at Cycle No.19 from March 1999 to April 1999. On the basis of the charge memo, the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report in which all the charges have been found to be proved against the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority had imposed penalty order dated 23.11.2011 contained in Memo no. 2998 (Annexure -11 to the writ petition) imposing major penalty of censure along with holding of three increments with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred appeal, by which, the penalty order dated 23.11.2011 was affirmed and the appeal was rejected vide order dated 02.03.2012 as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of penalty, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. Mr. Kumar Ravish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in course of quasi judicial inquiry had submitted that the petitioner is not liable for