The Patna High Court, in a significant ruling, has declared that initiating a fresh disciplinary enquiry after the submission of an enquiry report is legally impermissible under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The judgment was delivered by Justice Arvind Singh Chandel in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12121 of 2023. The court set aside the fresh enquiry order and directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order strictly following Rule 18(1) of the 2005 Rules.
Background of the Case
The case was filed by Praduman Kumar Prasad, who was serving as a Nazir in the District Welfare Office, West Champaran. A criminal case was registered against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, leading to disciplinary proceedings. He was suspended, and an enquiry was conducted.
Following the enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement and ordered the recovery of Rs. 37,41,060 from him. Prasad challenged the order in the High Court, which quashed the punishment and directed the disciplinary authority to restart proceedings from the stage of the second show cause notice. However, the disciplinary authority passed the same order again, leading to another challenge in the High Court.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Strikes Down Mandatory Arrest Condition in Bail Order
The court found that the charge memo issued to Prasad was defective as it did not comply with Rule 17(4) of the 2005 Rules. The defects included the absence of:
- A statement of imputation,
- A list of documents,
- A list of witnesses.
Despite these issues, a fresh charge memo was issued to Prasad, repeating the same charges. He specifically highlighted these defects in his response. Instead of rectifying the procedural lapses, the disciplinary authority initiated a fresh enquiry, prompting the current legal challenge.
Key Arguments Presented
By the Petitioner:
- The disciplinary authority, after receiving the enquiry report under Rule 18, had only three options:
- Accept the report.
- Disagree and issue a show cause notice.
- Direct further enquiry with valid reasons.
- Initiating a fresh enquiry amounted to a ‘de novo enquiry,’ which is not permitted under the rules.
- This was the third round of litigation, and Prasad had already retired from service.
By the Respondent (State of Bihar):
- The state defended the decision to conduct a fresh enquiry but failed to justify the action under the legal provisions.
Read Also:- Patna High Court Emphasizes Family Over Institutionalization for Juveniles in Conflict with Law
Justice Chandel examined previous rulings and relevant laws, particularly Rule 18(1) of the 2005 Rules. He cited precedents, including:
- State of Bihar v. Md Shamim Akhtar (LPA No. 1653 of 2016)"The disciplinary authority cannot amend charges or order a fresh enquiry after receiving the enquiry officer’s report."
- Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar (CWJC-16086/2021)"There is no provision under the Rules for conducting a second departmental inquiry. If defects exist, the matter must be remitted to the enquiry authority for further proceedings."
- State of Bihar v. Ashok Kumar Tiwari (MANU/BH/0089/2025)"A fresh enquiry after submission of an enquiry report is impermissible. The disciplinary authority can only proceed within the framework of Rule 18."
Based on these legal precedents, the court ruled that the fresh enquiry order dated 28.06.2023 was invalid. The court set aside the order and directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order strictly under Rule 18(1) within two weeks. If the matter were remitted to the enquiry officer, the process must be completed within 90 days.
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
