ORDER

Heard Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Vasant Vikas, learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as contained in Memo No. 1177 dated 10.10.2023 issued by the respondent no. 8 whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of censure for the year 2014-15 as well as withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, besides the recovery of 98,41,961/- from the petitioner. The petitioner also sought quashing of the order as contained in letter no. 1041 dated 26.12.2024 issued by the respondent no. 8 whereby the review application preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected on being found time barred.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has confined his prayer in a limited bound stating before this Court that the petitioner was working as a Block Agriculture Officer, Laukahi (Madhubani) during the paddy procurement in the year 2014-15. In addition to his duties, the petitioner was also authorized to discharge the duty of in-charge officer of Paddy Procurement Centre, Laukahi.

4. On account of certain imputations as disclosed in the memo of charge the petitioner was put to a departmental proceeding. On show cause being asked, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation before the inquiry officer. After due enquiry, the charges could not have been proved against the petitioner; however, the Disciplinary Authority could not agree with the enquiry report and vide order dated 14.03.2023 directed to re-enquire the matter in presence of District Manager, SFC, Madhubani. A fresh enquiry has been conducted after giving opportunity to all the concerned but again none of the charges stood proved; the Inquiry Officer submitted final inquiry report on 27.07.2023 as contained in letter no. 802.

5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to the inquiry report submitted the charges levelled against the petitioner, admittedly could not have been proved and thus the petitioner exonerated of both the charges. Notwithstanding, the aforesaid facts, the disciplinary authority without issuing any second show cause notice or much less without differing with the findings of the inquiry officer straightway passed the impugned order which is impugned herein.

6. It is the contention of the learned Advocate that neither the petitioner has been provided an opportunity to submit a written defence, nor he was asked to produce any materials in support of his defence, before inflicting the major penalty, inter alia, directing for recovery of certain amount. The impugned order of punishment is wholly illegal and contrary to the prescription as provided under Rule 18(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The petitioner being aggrieved also preferred review application which also came to be rejected on the ground of being time barred, without considering the grounds, challenging the original order.

7. Learned Advocate for the State referring to the impugned order submitted that at the initial stage in course of inquiry, the District Manager, SFC, Madhubani had not been allowed to participate and, as such, the disciplinary authority has rightly directed for re-inquiry. In course of inquiry it has been found that the mater relates to financial irregularity and the indiscipline, which is of serious nature and accordingly the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority.

8. The learned Advocate for the State further prayed for a short adjournment to file response to the writ petition.

9. Having heard the learned Advocate for the parties and after going through the impugned order, this Court primarily observed that the validity of the order is to be tested on the basis of the reason assigned in the order itself and it cannot be improved and supplemented by way of filing an affidavit or counter affidavit, as has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. Chief Election Commission