Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot re-evaluate evidence unless there is a violation of due process or lack of evidence.

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN)

Date : 16-12-2025

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and the respondent.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the oral judgment dated 28.03.2024, as modified by the oral order dated 16.04.2024, passed in CWJC No. 7162 of 2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner–respondent herein has been allowed by quashing the order of punishment dated 22.10.2014 contained in Memo No. 1557, as well as the order dated 10.08.2015 issued by the Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, contained in Notification No. 1772. The learned Single Judge has further directed the respondent authorities to issue all consequential orders in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of the said order.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 18 of the judgment is as follows:

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears from the perusal of the second show-cause notice that the disciplinary authority has not followed Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, in its true letter and spirit, while differing with the finding of the enquiry officer, and it further appears from the second show-cause notice that the disciplinary authority has framed a new charge against the petitioner relating to the land in question, which was initially not the subject matter of the memo of charge.”

3.1 Learned counsel for the appellant-State categorically submits that the aforesaid finding of the learned Single Judge is perverse and not in accordance with law. He further submits that under Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “CCA Rules, 2005”), it is well within the power of the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer on any article of charge. It is also within the authority’s power to record reasons for such disagreement and to record its own findings on the charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient. He further submits that under Rule 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005, the disciplinary authority is required to forward a copy of the inquiry report, along with its own findings, if any, as provided under sub-rule (2), to the government servant, who may submit his or her written representation within fifteen days.

3.2 Learned counsel further submits that the second show-cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority after disagreeing with the enquiry report, which is evident from Annexure-7, letter dated 20.01.2014, through which the disagreement memo, in compliance with Rule 18(2) and 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005, was forwarded to the delinquent employee.

3.3 Learned counsel for the appellant – State further submits that appellant has followed the principle of natural justice as well as the provision of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The writ petitioner was granted reasonable opportunity to place his defense and after considering the defense placed by him the disciplinary authority awarded punishment to the writ petitioner. However, the learned Single Judge has erroneously held that the said letter was issued in gross violation of Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 2005.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits at the outset that the learned Single Judge exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review by reappre