Procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries is paramount; mere allegations without supporting evidence or adherence to specified rules cannot justify punitive actions.

JUDGMENT :

(HARISH KUMAR, J. )

This Court has heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhanshu Bhushan, learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the enquiry report dated 10.03.2014 and the order of punishment as contained in Memo No. 34 dated 20.05.2014, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 20.12.2019 passed in Service Appeal Case No. 86/2019 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to be rejected by affirming the order of punishment.

3. An Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2024 has also been filed assailing the memo of charge as well as supplementary memo of charge on account of the fact that the same being in the teeth of Rule 17(3)(ii) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 2005’).

4. The facts of the case as culled out from the materials available on record are summarized hereinbelow:

(i) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in Block-Rajapakar, District Vaishali in the year 1984. While he was posted as Upper Division Clerk in the District Land Acquisition Office, Vaishali on 12.01.2007, he was apprehended by a trap team duly constituted by the Vigilance Department while accepting a bribe of Rs. 500/-. This led to institution of the FIR being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 4/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevenetion of Corruption Act, 1988. In the aforesaid premise, a memo of charge in the form of prapatra (ka) was issued vide letter dated 01.10.2007, however the departmental proceeding could not proceed and subsequently a supplementary memo of charge was issued vide memo No. 68 dated 20.01.2014.

(ii) The petitioner was placed under suspension and the Block Development Officer was appointed as Presenting Officer whereas the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Mahua as the Conducting Officer. The petitioner, in response to the memo of charge, entered his appearance in the departmental enquiry and submitted his defence statement. Upon submission of the written report by the Presenting Officer on 10.03.2014, the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted its enquiry report on 10.03.2014 itself, copy of which is marked as Anneuxre-3 to the writ petition. On receipt of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice to the petitioner and asked him to submit his reply. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply, copy of which is marked as Anneuxre-4 to the writ petition. Finally the disciplinary authority vide Memo No. 34 dated 20.05.2014 passed the impugned order inflicting punishment of dismissal from services.

(iii) The petitioner on being aggrieved preferred CWJC No. 11635 of 2014 which came to be dismissed on 11.02.2019 with a liberty to avail the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority. In pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur bearing Appeal No. 86/2019 which was finally heard and dismissed on 20.12.2019. Both the impugned orders as well as the memo of charges and the enquiry report are put to challenge before this Court.

5. While assailing the impugned orders, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is the fact that the Presenting Officer remained absent during the entire departmental proceeding and for the first time he submitted his opinion to t