A departmental inquiry requires evidence to substantiate charges; charges not backed by proof are insufficient for imposing punishment.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARTHY , J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following relief :-

“1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) for quashing the order Contained in memo no- 278 dated 30.1.12 whereby and where under three punishments viz (i) censure to be entered in confidential record for 2009-10, (ii) stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, and (iii) No payment of salary and other allowances shall be made other than subsistence allowance for suspension period, i.e., for the period from 23.12.2010 to 29.1.2012, which is totally illegal and further for any other relief(s) for which the petitioner may found entitled to.”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that while working in the capacity of an Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Nalanda, on 13.11.2009 the petitioner was given the additional charge of Assistant Director, Gaya.

4. The petitioner received a notice dated 27.12.2009 from the District Magistrate, Nalanda asking him to show-cause within 24 hours as to why he was not at the headquarters on 27.12.2009 at the time of the Chief Minister’s visit and he had been deputed at Rajgir to maintain law and order. The same was followed by another show-cause on 28.12.2009 stating that no reply had been received from him. The petitioner submitted his reply on 28.12.2009 denying the charges. He followed the same with another reply dated 2.1.2010 which was with respect to the running of the illegal brick kiln. The District Magistrate wrote a letter dated 14.1.2010 to the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department stating therein that the reply submitted by the petitioner had not been found to be satisfactory and the petitioner had also not made available the enquiry report with respect to the brick kiln. As such it was requested that appropriate proceeding be initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 30.7.2010 containing four charges which were to the effect that (i) the petitioner had been directed to coordinate with the Block Development Officer, Giriyak and the Officer In-charge, Giriyak and to enquire into the running of the illegal brick kiln and to submit the report; (ii) the report had not been submitted; (iii) all the Officers had been directed not to leave their headquarters in view of the visit of the Hon’ble Chief Minister but the directions were not followed by the petitioner; (iv) in absence of the petitioner, the enquiry with respect to the illegally run brick kiln was got done by the Circle Officer, Giriyak, the Police Inspector, Giriyak and the Officer In-charge, Giriyak.

5. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to each of the charges before the Conducting Officer on 14.9.2010. The Conducting Officer submitted his enquiry report on 25.10.2010. He was of the opinion that the charge with respect to not following the directions of the authority was partly proved. He was further of the opinion that the petitioner should have taken prior permission before leaving the headquarters and though the petitioner had expressed his regret, such an error from such an experienced officer cannot be appreciated. Further with respect to the fourth charge, he was of the opinion that there had been lack of alertness on part of the petitioner.

6. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.12.2010.

7. On 14.6.2011, the petiti