Departmental inquiries must substantiate allegations with evidence through witness testimony, not solely through unverified documents.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 01-12-2025

1. Heard Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned GP-26 for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application praying for setting aside the order contained in Memo no.9126 dated 21.11.2022 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, Bihar, Patna whereby punishment of full deduction of pension has been passed under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (herein after referred to as ‘the Rules’).

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated 28.3.2018 to which he filed his reply on 8.4.2018. Not finding the reply filed by the petitioner to be satisfactory, a departmental proceeding was initiated on 7.8.2018 appointing the Conducting Officer and the Presenting Officer in the case. As in the meantime the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2019, the proceedings were converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the Rules.

4. The Conducting Officer–cum–Joint Commissioner –cum–Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Purnea submitted his enquiry report finding the charge nos.1, 3 and 4 to have been proved whereas charge no.2 not to be proved.

5. The petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report on 13.7.2022 to which he submitted his reply on

27.7.2022.

6. Having considered the contents of the enquiry report wherein three out of the four charges had been proved and not being satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, Bihar, Patna was pleased to pass the order of punishment dated 21.11.2022 against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the Rules, fully deducting the pension.

7. It is against this order of punishment dated

21.11.2022 that the instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for the relief prayed for as stated herein above.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner had been proceeded against for same/similar charges on earlier occasion also. First time the charges were enquired into by the respondent authorities, an enquiry report dated 4.12.2013 (Annexure-4) was submitted not finding the charges/allegations to have been proved. It is further submitted that for the same charges once again another enquiry was started which also ended with the submission of the report dated 29.1.2020, once again not finding the allegations against the petitioner to have been proved. Learned Senior counsel further submits that so far as reference to the criminal miscellaneous case is concerned i.e.

Vigilance P.S. Case no.66 of 2017 registered on 30.8.2017, the petitioner has been acquitted in the said case and a copy of the judgment is Annexure-8 to the petition. Further in reference to the order of punishment, it is submitted that it is an absolutely non-speaking order, with the Disciplinary Authority not having taken into account nor having dealt with any of the defense raised by the petitioner. The order suffers from non-application of mind.

9. It is lastly submitted that that on perusal of the enquiry report wherein as per the Enquiry Officer, three of the charges have been proved it would transpire that not a single witness was examined on behalf of the Management and consequently no document exhibited was proved. It is thus a case of no evidence against the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.; (2009) 2 SCC 570 . It is thus prayed that the order of punishment cannot be sustained, the same be set aside and the writ application be allowed. 10. The a