The court ruled on the necessity of proportionality in disciplinary action, emphasizing that harsh penalties must be justified and aligned with the seriousness of the misconduct.

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Date : 12-12-2025

In this case, the petitioner has assailed the order contained in memo no.715 dated 08.06.2021 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief -cum- Disciplinary Authority, by which the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of demotion to the lowest pay scale Level- 4 till his superannuation and it was directed that no increment shall be paid to him during this period. The petitioner has also assailed the appellate order dated 23.8.2022 passed by the Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, by which the appeal preferred against the order of punishment has been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondent authorities to pay full salary as well as the arrears of salary from the date of suspension along with other momentary benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on compassionate ground to the post of Lower Grade Accounts Clerk in the Rural Works Department. The Department had constituted a Four Men Committee to examine the account books and financial transactions for the last 7 years in different work divisions. Finding certain discrepancies, an explanation was sought from the petitioner, to which he had submitted his explanation. However, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and accordingly, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 12.11.2020. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.11.2020, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a memo of charge and other relevant documents were served upon the petitioner. Against the petitioner, altogether six charges were levelled, which are as under:-

3. After enquiry, an enquiry report dated 03.03.2021 was submitted wherein charge no.2, regarding diversion of payment from the funds of PMGSY was found to be partially proved and remaining charges were not proved. The petitioner filed his objection on 23.12.2020 requesting the Enquiry Officer to supply the relevant records i.e. measurement book, cash-book and liquidated damage reduction register as well as the evidence based on which the enquiry report 22.11.2020 was prepared. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his defence statement on 18.01.2021.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that his suspension was revoked on 17.03.2021 by the disciplinary authority, who agreeing with the enquiry report, wherein charge no.2 regarding diversion of funds from PMGSY was partially proved, issued a second show-cause to the petitioner on 09.04.2021. The petitioner submitted his defence to the second show-cause notice on 15.04.2021 and categorically stated that the payment to the contractors was made in accordance with the Rules and also after due verification by the Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer on the measurement book. Therefore, the liability for payment of bills to the contractors cannot be solely attributed to the petitioner. It was also stated in the defence statement that the petitioner had taken remedial steps for account settlement and as such, no financial loss to the department has occurred and also in the report of the Auditor no adverse remarks was made against the petitioner. It was also stated that since the petitioner was over burdened with work, as out of the four sanctioned posts, the petitioner was the single person handling the account section and it was an innocent clerical mistake for which the petitioner cannot be inflicted with such a harsh punishment for the remainder of his service.

5. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 08.06.2021 has rejected the respon