IMPORTANT POINT
[The necessity of competent authority's approval for both the initiation of departmental proceedings and the charge memo is crucial for the validity of disciplinary actions against public servants.]

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order contained in Memo No. 5644 dated 25.06.2015 (Annexure-10), whereby punishments of censor and stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect have been imposed upon him. By filing I.A. No. 5667 of 2022, the petitioner has also challenged the entire departmental proceeding initiated vide Government Resolution dated 30.12.2010 (Annexure -2), specifically Prapatra-Ka which is said to be not approved by the competent authority.

The Facts

3. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Deputy Collector on 29.05.1995 after being selected in the examination conducted by Bihar Public Service Commission. Promotion in the junior selection grade was also given to the petitioner on 29.7.2007. Thereafter, he was posted as Block Development Officer, Gidhour, Chatra by notification dated 19.7.2007. While the petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer, Bano, Simdega in between the period from 03.11.2007 to 8.11.2008, an advance amount was approved at the level of the petitioner to the Village Level Committee for construction of RCC Bridge in Sahubera Village Panchayat, Barkaduil Panchayat, Ukaili Panchayat under different Schemes. It is further case of the petitioner that since the work could not be performed; the amount was refunded by the beneficiaries after the petitioner was transferred from Bano. An F.I.R. was also lodged against the petitioner being Bano P.S. Case No. 33 of 2009 on 09.10.2009, on the same set of facts with the allegation of defalcation of money. However, the petitioner was discharged of the allegations in Criminal Revision No. 10/2012.

4. However, departmental proceeding was initiated by framing Prapatra-Ka on 15.12.2010 and the petitioner was directed to submit his reply. The petitioner being duty bound submitted his reply on 02.12.2013, but having found not satisfactory, the inquiry officer found the charge to be proved and ultimately, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment impugned, which is under challenge in the writ petition.

Argument advanced by learned counsel for Petitioner.

5. Assailing the impugned punishments, Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously urges that the charge contained in Prapatra-Ka is itself not tenable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the same is not approved by the competent authority. Learned counsel submits that the entire record relating to the present departmental proceeding was called for by this Court and from perusal of the entire documents, it is evident that though the initiation of departmental proceeding was approved by the Departmental Minister, but there was no approval of the memo of charge contained in Prapatra-Ka. The memo of charge is at page no. 64 and 65 of the departmental records. In view of the above backdrop, learned counsel empathically argues that in absence of the approval of the charges by the competent authority, further proceedings in the disciplinary case is not sustainable. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel refers the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351.

6. Further submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry report proving the charge against the petitioner is also not sustainable in view of the fact that the inquiry officer has not dealt with any of the evidences in his report. He further submits that in the entire enquiry report, there is no examination or cross-examination of any witness and even the presenting officer has opined that no allegation is substantiated. Some documentary evidences have been dealt with, which are the recordings of the material persons that too in some other proceedings and not the present proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that the recording of the finding by the inquiry officer regarding corruption charges