ORDER

Heard Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Fazle Karim, learned A.C. to S.C.-1.

2. The present petition has been filed for the following reliefs: –

“(i) For setting aside the resolution dated 09.11.2022 (Annexure-6) contained in Memo No.11271 passed by the Joint Secretarycum- Director (Prison) (Respondent No.2) whereby and whereunder an order of punishment for withholding of four increments of pay with cumulative effect has been awarded to the petitioner in exercise of power Under the provisions of the Bihar Govt. Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 hereinafter referred to CCA Rules”

3. The petitioner was posted as Jail Superintendent in Katihar Jail. At that time, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and charge memo containing four charges was served, under Rule 17(3) of the C.C.A. Rules in Prapatra 'Ka' on 02.06.2020, alleging therein that a video went viral on social media about the quarrel which took place on 30.8.2017 between the prisoners and as such, the petitioner has violated the provisions of Bihar Jail Manual in performing his duties. The aforesaid proceeding was initiated vide resolution dated 08.03.2021. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer asked the petitioner to submit his response in defence of his case vide order dated dated 25.3.2021. Accordingly, the petitioner filed his reply on 14.09.2021 stating therein that he has not violated any provisions of the Jail Manual and rather has been performing his duties diligently, inasmuch, he has filed several criminal cases against the accused persons who wanted to disturb the smooth functioning of the jail.

4. The Enquiry Officer after a detailed enquiry has submitted his report dated 30.03.2022 and found that the charge nos. 1, 3 and 4 are not proved against the petitioner and the charge no.2 was partially proved. However, the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer issued a second show-cause notice dated 26.05.2022 directing the petitioner to file reply to the same. After receiving the second show cause notice, the petitioner filed his reply dated 09.06.2022 with a prayer to drop the proceeding initiated against him. The petitioner has stated in his reply that incident took place about five years back and at that time, the Inspector General and Deputy Inspector General (Prison) has also, after proper enquiry, exonerated the petitioner and even the enquiry officer has not found charges to be proved save and except charge no.2. which was found partially proved and as such, he requested to exonerate him. However, the disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the second show-cause reply has passed the impugned order of punishment vide resolution dated 09.11.2022 withholding four increments of pay with cumulative effect.

5. Against the punishment order, the petitioner filed an application/representation dated 24.1.2023 before the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar unsuccessfully.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has adverted to the provisions of the Bihar Jail Manual to argue that the petitioner has not violated any provision of the aforesaid Jail Manual.

7. Relying upon the provisions of Rule 18(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the disciplinary authority is disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer then he has to record the valid reasons for his disagreement and has to record its own findings on such charge with the evidence on record. However, in the present case, the disciplinary authority has recorded a cryptic finding without evaluating and considering the evidences available on the record and has presumed that the petitioner has not performed the duty as envisaged under the Jail Manual.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority without considering the materials available on the record has came to the conclusion while issuing seco