ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 09-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation and learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was specific direction of this Court vide order dated

28.11.2023 to the State that the State may file their response on the different interlocutory applications.

3. In this regard, learned counsel for the State submits that in the counter affidavit the reply of writ petition as well as interlocutory applications are consolidated. Therefore, no need of filing separate response towards three interlocutory applications.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order bearing Memo No.2423 dated 18.05.2017, which is a gross violation of Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules, 2005’). The further prayer has been made to restrain the respondents from concluding the Departmental Proceeding as initiated vide Memo No.2423 dated

18.05.2017.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the writ petition vide order dated 12.03.2018 a protection order has been granted by this Hon’ble Court in favour of the petitioner by which it has been ordered that the final order shall not be passed undergoing departmental proceeding by the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prima facie this proceeding has been started in gross violation of Rule 17(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005. His argument is on two fold, firstly that the ‘Prapatra Ka’ has not been prepared by the appointing authority and secondly the forwarding letter, which has been annexed under the signature of the Special Secretary, does not contain the lawful requirement as contained under Rule 17(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005. Counsel submits that the analysis of that Rule has been made in the case of Uday Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary and Others reported in 2017(4)

PLJR 195, whose paragraph 19, 20 and 21 states as follows:

“19. A disciplinary proceeding is said to be initiated upon service of a charge memo as mandated under Rule 17(3) of “the Disciplinary Rules” which inter alia enables the Disciplinary Authority to draw a charge memo or cause it to be drawn by a competent authority and which charge memo should inter alia contain:

(a) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour as a definite and distinct article of charge;

and (b) a statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge and which shall contain:

(i) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession of the Government Servant;

(ii) a list of such document(s)

on which, the article of charges are proposed to be sustained.

20. Rule 17(4) of “the Disciplinary Rules” again casts and obligation on the Disciplinary Authority to deliver such charge memo on the Government Servant concerned, and require him to submit a written statement of defence as well as to state whether he desires to be heard in person.

22. Rule 17(6) obliges the Disciplinary Authority, where it chooses to delegate the power of enquiry to an inquiring authority, to forward a copy of the enquiry report, the written statement of defence, if any; the copy of the statement of witnesses, if any; the evidence proving the delivery of documents and copy of the order appointing the Presenting Officer, to the inquiring authority.”

Counsel submits that upon analysis of the specific provision and the charge memo which is contained in Annexure-1, it is crystal clear that there is gross violation of Rule 17(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005.

6. One more judgment which is relevant for the purpose of considering this case is the judgment of Chairman- cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others Vs. Ananta Saha and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142 w