Fresh Disciplinary Enquiry After Submission Of Enquiry Report Impermissible: Patna HC

Background

Praduman Kumar Prasad was appointed as Nazir in the District Welfare Office, West Champaran. A criminal case was registered against him and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. After completing the enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing compulsory retirement and directed recovery of Rs. 37,41,060/- from him.

Aggrieved, Prasad approached the High Court. The Court set aside the punishment, and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority. However, the disciplinary authority passed the same order, and Prasad approached the High Court again. The court found that the charge memo violated Rule 17(4) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 ('2005 Rules'), as it lacked the list of statement of imputation, list of documents, and list of witnesses.

Subsequently, the same defective charge memo was issued to Prasad. In his reply, he specifically mentioned that the charge memo was not in accordance with the 2005 Rules and violated the High Court's order. Despite this, a fresh enquiry was initiated, prompting the present petition.

Arguments

Prasad submitted that once the enquiry officer submits a report under Rule 18 of the 2005 Rules, the disciplinary authority must either accept it, disagree with it, or direct further enquiry with reasons. Instead, in this case, a fresh charge memo was served containing the same charges for which an enquiry report had already been submitted. He argued that this amounted to a de novo enquiry, which is not permissible under the rules. Prasad further argued that this was the third round of litigation, and he had already retired from service.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the Court examined its earlier order which found that the charge memo was defective for not complying with Rule 17(4) of the 2005 Rules. It noted that following this order, the same charge sheet was again issued to Prasad.

Secondly, the court cited State of Bihar v. Md Shamim Akhtar (LPA No. 1653 of 2016), which held that after receiving an enquiry report, a disciplinary authority has limited options: either accept or reject the findings, or if you disagree, issue a show cause notice and remand the matter to enquiry. Importantly, the court noted that the disciplinary authority cannot amend charges or order a fresh enquiry at this stage.

Further, citing Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar (CWJC-16086/2021), the court held that no provision under the Rules contemplates a second departmental inquiry. It ruled that if defects are noticed, the matter could be remitted back to the Enquiring Authority for further inquiry under Rule 18(1). Thus, the Court ruled that after submission of an enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has no power to start a fresh enquiry.

Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition. It remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with Rule 18(1) of the 2005 Rules. The court directed the disciplinary authority to pass the order within two weeks.

Decided on: 25-02-2025

Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 12121 of 2023 | Praduman Kumar Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Shashank Chandra

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Kumari Amrita

Click Here To Read/Download The Order