Departmental inquiries must comply with procedural standards and sufficient evidence is needed to uphold findings of misconduct.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 04-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application praying for setting aside the order contained in Memo no. 1996 dated 26.5.2023 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department, Government of Bihar imposing the punishment of deduction of 100% pension on the petitioner.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that while the petitioner was posted as the District Welfare Officer In-charge of District Arwal, he was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding with the memo of charge having been served on him on 28.4.2021. He submitted his reply.

4. In the meantime, the petitioner having retired from service on 31.12.2021, by order dated 28.3.2022 the proceedings were converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules . After conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report on 21.2.2023 finding all the charges to have been proved against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner was served with a copy of the inquiry report to which he submitted his reply. The respondent authority thereafter came out with the order of punishment contained in Memo no. 1996 dated 26.5.2023 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department, Government of Bihar imposing the punishment of 100% deduction of pension on the petitioner. It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred the instant writ application.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that besides the petitioner having a good case on merits, so far as the inquiry report is concerned, which has been brought on record as Annexure-13 to the writ application, it is not in dispute that not a single witness was examined on behalf of the management. Further no document was proved by any witness and none was marked as an exhibit. Nevertheless, the Inquiry Officer having come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved is absolutely erroneous.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the same set of allegations inquiry has been conducted against the petitioner on earlier occasion also and the petitioner was exonerated therein. The proceeding being one under Rule 43(b), it could not have been for an event which took place more than four years before the institution of the proceeding. It is also submitted that the order under Rule 43(b) should have been passed by the State Government or even after the amendment either by the Secretary or the Principal Secretary. It is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and as such, the order of punishment cannot be sustained. It is prayed that the order of punishment be set aside and the writ application be allowed.

8. The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is submitted that in terms of Rule 43(b), proceedings having been initiated prior to the retirement of the petitioner, there is no bar of the period of four years. It is further submitted that as per instructions received and being brought on record in the counter affidavit, copy of which has been served on learned counsel for the petitioner, it is the Secretary/Principal Secretary who has passed the order of punishment in the files, though it is the Deputy Secretary under whose signature the order impugned dated 26.5.2023 (Annexure-1) has been issued. It is submitted that there is no procedural irregularity in the proceedings carried out against the petitioner. The petitioner has not made out a case for interference in the order by the Court and as such, the writ application be dismissed.

9. Heard learned counsel for