IMPORTANT POINT
Procedural errors in disciplinary proceedings violated natural justice, requiring the quashing of penalties and remanding for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP KUMAR, J.

1. Since the facts of these cases are same and similar, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. In C.W.J.C. No.3604 of 2025, the petitioner (Michael Francis) has challenged the order contained in memo no.66 dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, by which the petitioner- Michael Francis he has been visited with the punishment of dismissal from service with a further stipulation that nothing shall be payable to him for the period of suspension. In C.W.J.C. No.4007 of 2025, the petitioner - Sujeet Kumar, has challenged the order contained in memo no.67 dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, by which he has been visited with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with a further stipulation that nothing shall be payable to the petitioner except subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. The petitioners have also challenged the appellate orders dated 19.12.2024 and 08.01.2025 respectively, by which the appeal filed by the petitioners against the orders of punishment, have been rejected by the Appellate Authority. They have also prayed to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of consequential arrears of salary for the period during which they has been kept out of employment and also to make payment of full salary to the petitioners for the period of suspension after deducting the subsistence allowance already paid to them.

3. The facts of these cases are that both the petitioners were appointed on Class-IV posts in the Bihar School Examination Board and they were promoted to the post of Routine Clerk in the years 2008. Whereafter, both the petitioners have been further promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 2012. In the year 2018, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioners primarily on the allegation that they were unauthorizedly absent from their duties and for their involvement/role in the criminal case bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No.452 of 2018 dated 19.07.2018. Against the petitioner-Micheal Francis, altogether seven charges have been framed, which primarily revolved around the allegation of unauthorized absence from the duty and for his involvement/role in the criminal case bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No.452 of 2018 dated 19.07.2018. Thereafter, a supplementary memo of charge was also submitted wherein one additional charge has been framed against the aforesaid petitioner that despite being suspended, he did not join his assigned headquarters for about five months.

4. So far as petitioner - Sujeet Kumar is concerned, altogether five charges have been framed against him, which also revolved around his unauthorized absence from the duties and also his involvement/role in the criminal case bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No.452 of 2018 dated 19.07.2018.

5. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer issued memo dated 15.07.2019 upon the petitioners annexing the charges levelled against them and directed the petitioners to submit their reply/defence. The petitioners by filing representation/ applications requested to supply certain document, based on which, charges were levelled against them. Whereafter, the petitioners have submitted their written responses/replies. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted the enquiry report to the respondent-Board finding the charges against the petitioner- Michael Francis to be true whereas, against the petitioner-Sujit Kumar it has been concluded that the involvement of