Praduman Kumar Prasad, serving as a Nazir in the District Welfare Office of West Champaran, faced both criminal charges and departmental disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary authority concluded the enquiry by imposing compulsory retirement and ordering the recovery of ₹37,41,060 from Prasad. Challenging this decision, Prasad approached the Patna High Court, which set aside the punishment and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration. However, the disciplinary authority reiterated the same order, prompting Prasad to seek judicial intervention once more. The High Court identified procedural lapses in the charge memo, notably its non-compliance with Rule 17(4) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, due to the absence of essential documents and witness lists. Despite these judicial findings, the disciplinary authority reissued the defective charge memo and initiated a fresh enquiry, leading to the current petition.
Arguments Presented
Prasad contended that upon the submission of an enquiry report under Rule 18 of the 2005 Rules, the disciplinary authority is confined to specific actions: accepting the report, disagreeing with it, or directing further enquiry with valid reasons. He argued that serving a fresh charge memo on identical charges constituted an impermissible de novo enquiry under the established rules. Highlighting the protracted nature of the proceedings and his subsequent retirement, Prasad emphasized the undue hardship caused by the repeated and flawed disciplinary actions.
Court's Analysis and Judgment
The Patna High Court scrutinized its prior rulings, emphasizing the earlier identification of defects in the charge memo due to non-compliance with Rule 17(4) of the 2005 Rules. The court observed that, despite explicit judicial directions, the disciplinary authority reissued the same defective charge sheet and proceeded with a fresh enquiry. Citing the precedent set in State of Bihar v. Md Shamim Akhtar (LPA No. 1653 of 2016), the court reiterated that post-submission of an enquiry report, the disciplinary authority's options are limited and do not include initiating a fresh enquiry on the same charges. Consequently, the court set aside the order for a fresh disciplinary enquiry and directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law within two weeks.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings. It clarifies that disciplinary authorities must operate within the confines of established rules and cannot resort to initiating fresh enquiries on identical charges after an enquiry report has been submitted. The judgment serves as a cautionary directive to ensure that disciplinary actions are conducted with due process, respecting the rights of the employees and adhering strictly to procedural mandates.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.