Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
Harish Kumar S/o Late Sheo Kumar Singh @ Shiv Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18590 of 2018
Decided On : 16 -10-2025
Service Law – Departmental Proceeding – A bare perusal of memo of charge reveals that no list of documents nor list of witnesses proposed to prove the said charges was annexed thereto which is violation of the statutory mandate of Rule 17(6) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 – There is no mention any where in the enquiry report that the Enquiry Officer had fixed any date of hearing for holding enquiry and the Presenting Officer had adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of the allegation or that any witness was examined in presence of the petitioner – The findings of the Enquiry Officer rests merely on the subjective satisfaction of the Enquiry Officer without any supporting material – In the second memo of charge, except for the first charge regarding alleged defalcation, the remaining five charges are vague, indefinite, and bereft of particulars – The second memo of charge also does not disclose any list of witnesses or documents relied upon – The record further indicates that the Presenting Officer, despite being appointed, did not produce any evidence or examine any witness in the course of the Enquiry – The date of enquiry was never fixed – It is a settled proposition of law that an Enquiry Officer acts as a quasi-judicial authority and not as a representative of the department – The role of the Presenting Officer is distinct to lead evidence in support of the charges and produce witnesses for examination – From the conspectus of facts and the law, the enquiry is vitiated on the ground that along with the memo of charge the list of documents and witnesses by which the article of charge were proposed to be proved/sustained were not provided to the petitioner as required under Rule 17(3) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 – Accordingly, memo of charge is quashed and consequently, the impugned order of punishment quashed – Petitioner held entitled to be paid all consequential benefit and refund of amount which has been realized. (Paras 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 37 to 41)
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. By way of the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 839 dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna whereby service appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order of punishment contained in Memo No. 567 dated 27.01.2018 passed by District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, imposing punishment of recovery of Rs. 14,15,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 20.06.1987 at Middle School, Harnichak, Phulwarisharif, Patna. He was promoted on 31.07.2010 to the post of Graduate Teacher (Science). Consequent upon his promotion, he was transferred from Primary School, Kali Asthan, Malsalami, Patna City to Uttkramit Middle School, Maksoodpur, Fatuha, Patna, where he joined on the promoted post. Subsequently, the petitioner, being the senior-most teacher in the said school, submitted an application dated 27.09.2010 before the Block Education Officer, Fatuha, requesting that he should be given the charge of Headmaster on the basis of seniority. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was given the charge of Headmaster and was later given additional charge of Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Fatuha, on 07.05.2011. The petitioner discharged his duties as In-charge Headmaster of the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya from 07.05.2011 to 03.10.2012. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the aforesaid period, the petitioner upon taking charge of Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Fatuha found several irregularities in maintaining the stock register, receipt of bills etc. by his predecessor and he brought all these facts to the notice of the District Programme Officer (Primary Education) as well as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Patna through his application dated 22.10.2011 (Annexure- 1).
3. Thereafter, on one fine morning, an inspection was done by the District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Patna and pursuant to his recommendation the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, put the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect vide office order dated 29.08.2012 contained in Memo No. 6628 in contemplation of departmental proceeding. However, on the same date, the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, recalled and stayed the said order only with respect to suspension vide Memo No. 6648.
4. Thereafter, once again, vide Office Order dated 31.10.2012 contained in Memo No. 8662 issued by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, the petitioner was put under suspension. Subsequently, vide Office Order of the same date contained in Memo No. 8663 issued under the signature of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, the petitioner was served with memo of charge in Form ‘K’ and was directed to submit his written reply within 15 days before the Enquiry Officer. It was further directed that the Enquiry Officer shall submit the enquiry report to the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, within 30 days.
5. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer vide letter no. 31 dated 14.01.2013 asked the petitioner to file his reply and pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his written reply. Thereafter, Block Education Officer, Mokama -cum- Enquiry Officer, submitted enquiry report vide Memo No. 110 dated 25.02.2013. A copy of the enquiry report is annexed as Annexure- 8 to the writ petition. On the basis of the enquiry report, the District Programme Officer, Establishment, Patna vide Memo No. 2048 dated 02.03.2013 revoked the petitioner’s suspension and posted him to Uttkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, Azimchak, Sampat Chak, Patna.
6. Thereafter, after a long gap of about two years, the District Programme Officer iss
Procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries mandates adherence to statutory requirements, including the presentation of evidence and opportunity for defense, failure of which invalidates the inquir....
Disciplinary proceedings quashed for defective charge memo without imputations, documents, witnesses; no departmental evidence or witnesses; perfunctory enquiry report lacking independent reasons and....
Procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries is paramount; mere allegations without supporting evidence or adherence to specified rules cannot justify punitive actions.
Procedural impropriety in disciplinary proceedings invalidates dismissal; adherence to rules is essential for fairness.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
