Disciplinary authorities must provide cogent reasons for disagreement with inquiry findings, ensuring fair process under applicable rules.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date : 22-12-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna, by which the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect as well as the appellate order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate has been dismissed.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Clerk in the office of the District Magistrate, Patna. The District Magistrate, Patna by his order dated 10.10.2018 suspended the petitioner in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding on the basis of a report submitted by the inquiry committee, for the charges of committing irregularities in mutation proceedings. Thereafter, vide letter dated 14.01.2019, the District Magistrate, Patna -cum-Disciplinary Authority, framed the memo of charge against the petitioner in which altogether four charges have been levelled against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Additional Collector was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Patna, was appointed as Presenting Officer for conducting the departmental proceeding.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner to file his written statement of defense and in pursuance thereof, he filed his written statement of defense and thereafter the Presenting Officer gave his comments on the show-cause reply filed by the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, after enquiry, has submitted his enquiry report on 12.09.2019 exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. However, the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 09.01.2020 had recorded that the file is received back for re-

enquiry upon the direction/discussion with the disciplinary authority and thereafter, re-enquiry was conducted. Subsequently, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 17.02.2020. After re-enquiry, the report dated 08.06.2020 was submitted holding three out of four charges to be partly proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, a second show-cause was issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority on 03.12.2020, to which the petitioner replied on 10.02.2021. The District Magistrate, after considering the response of the petitioner, has passed the impugned order dated 17.01.2022 awarding the major punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal unsuccessfully.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary proceeding conducted against the petitioner is in complete violation of Bihar CCA Rules , 2005, inasmuch as, no list of witnesses and documents have been supplied to the petitioner along with memo of charge.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer after a detailed enquiry, has submitted his enquiry report dated 12.09.2019 exonerating the petitioner with a finding that none of the four charges were proved, however, vide order dated 09.01.2020 the Enquiry Officer in a very surprising manner directed the Conducting Officer to submit a para-wise reply to the show-cause submitted by the petitioner in light of the discussions and directions of the District Magistrate, Patna. Therefore, it is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once an enquiry report dated 12.09.2019 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the same officer could not have directed the Conducting Officer to submit a para-wise reply merely based upon a discussions/ direction from the Di