Disciplinary proceedings require oral evidence for proving charges; failure to provide a witness list vitiates the inquiry, emphasizing adherence to natural justice standards.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Kumar, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to an order dated 25.02.2020, as contained in Memo No. 2/M2- 70-06/2013 Home (Police)/1978, issued under the signature of Special Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Home (Police), whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner further sought quashing of the order as contained in Memo No.2/Police-70-06/2013 Home (Police)/8509 dated 14.12.2020, whereby the review preferred against the order of punishment came to be rejected.

3. The petitioner was posted as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jamalpur, when an incident occurred in 2011 involving indiscriminate firing. Vide Letter No. 1992, dated 05.06.2013, the Inspector General (Headquarters), Bihar, Patna, requested the Home Department to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for allegedly assisting the accused from one group, disobeying superior officers, and restraining subordinates from arresting the accused. A Memo of Charge dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure-P/12) was issued with three charges and a list of documents, but no witness list. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 17.11.2014 (Annexure- P/16). No progress occurred for three years, prompting the petitioner to request closure of proceedings vide letters dated 14.11.2017 (to ADG HQ) and 31.07.2018 (to DGP Bihar). No action followed. On 07.01.2019, the Inquiry Officer requested the appointment of a Presenting Officer. Post appointment, the petitioner was asked to produce and verify documents through witnesses. Two constables from the offices of the IG, Bhagalpur, and SP, Munger, were produced by the Presenting Officer as witnesses. The petitioner submitted his defence statement on 10.06.2019. The Presenting Officer was directed to respond. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 17.07.2019 (Annexure- P/29), finding Charge nos. 1 and 2 proved, while Charge no. 3 was not proved.

4. On receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner was served with the second show-cause along with the enquiry report on 13.08.2019. The petitioner immediately submitted his reply to the second show-cause. However, it did not find any favour and the impugned order of punishment came to be passed on 25.02.2020 by the respondent no.2.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Review, however, the same came to be rejected vide order dated 14.12.2020. Both the orders, aforenoted, are challenged in the present writ petition.

6. Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned Advocate for the petitioner assailing the impugned orders primarily questioned the legality of the Memo of charge and submitted that admittedly there had been no list of witnesses to bring home the charges and thus violating the Rules 17(4) and 17 (14) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules, 2005’). In absence of the witnesses to prove the charges, the natural coro