The Patna High Court has clarified how disciplinary authorities must prove charges in departmental proceedings and what role an enquiry officer can—and cannot—play while assessing evidence. In this 2021 Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) arising from a service matter, the Court set aside the dismissal of a government employee and restored consequential benefits, holding that the findings against the employee were unsupported by legally admissible evidence and went beyond the charges actually framed.

The case stemmed from allegations of misappropriation in the “diesel subsidy” scheme during 2009–10 and 2010–11 in a block of Bhagalpur district. A complaint led to a vigilance investigation and registration of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 71 of 2013 under various IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act provisions; prosecution sanction followed, and the employee was suspended under Rule 9 of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005. Departmental proceedings were initiated in parallel.

Charges were framed in “Prapatra-Ka(d)” alleging forged distribution registers, misappropriation, and irregular entries in subsidy records, supported only by vigilance papers and related documents listed as “evidence.” An Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed.

In defence, the employee emphasized that, under departmental circulars (including letter no. 4442 dated 26.07.2010 of the Agriculture Department), preparation of the beneficiaries’ list and distribution of subsidy at the panchayat level were the responsibility of the Gram Sabha, Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary—not the Block Development Office. The Enquiry Officer substantially accepted this defence and specifically noted that disbursement among beneficiaries was not the BDO’s role.

Despite accepting the defence on the five framed articles, the Enquiry Officer added an observation that while the subsidy amount was released to the panchayat, the officer “seems” not to have monitored distribution and could therefore be “indirectly” responsible—essentially importing a negligence finding that had not been charged.

The High Court found this impermissible. Negligence (as opposed to grave negligence) was not charged; the enquiry officer could not travel beyond the charge-sheet. Punishment premised on an uncharged finding is “wholly illegal.” The Court also underscored that suspicion or conjecture cannot replace proof in a departmental proceeding.

The record further showed that the Presenting Officer repeatedly failed to appear and did not prove the documents. Nevertheless, a second show-cause notice asserted that charges “stood proved,” relying on the Enquiry Officer’s paragraph about “non-monitoring”—even though the enquiry report had not found any of the five charges proved.

Relying essentially on a vigilance letter and the FIR, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to dismiss the employee. The High Court held that such reliance was unsustainable in law, because neither the vigilance materials nor the FIR had been proved through witnesses or tested by cross-examination before the Enquiry Officer.

The appellate/revisional process also drew criticism. The statutory appeal filed before the competent authority was oddly treated as a revision/review by the very Disciplinary Authority and rejected, even as the District Magistrate (the controlling authority) later clarified that under the applicable circulars, the BDO had “no role” in distributing subsidy; that function lay with the Panchayat Secretary acting on the Gram Sabha’s final list.

On these foundations, the Division Bench (Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar) allowed the LPA, set aside the dismissal and the Single Judge’s order, and granted all consequential benefits to the employee. Given that the employee had already retired, the Court declined to grant any liberty to commence a fresh proceeding on the same charges.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This decision is a valuable guide for government departments and public employees in Bihar:

• It reaffirms that an enquiry officer cannot expand the scope of charges. Where the charge-sheet alleges misappropriation or forgery, the authority cannot punish for “negligence” unless negligence is specifically charged.
• It emphasizes evidentiary rigor: vigilance reports, investigation papers, and FIRs are not evidence by themselves. Their contents must be proved by examining witnesses before the Enquiry Officer, with an opportunity for cross-examination. Without this, such documents cannot form the basis of guilt.
• It clarifies administrative roles in scheme implementation. Distribution of subsidies at the panchayat level is the Gram Sabha/Panchayat Secretary’s responsibility; the BDO’s role is limited (e.g., accounting), unless specific circulars say otherwise.
• It cautions appellate authorities to act independently and in accordance with the statutory framework; converting an appeal into a “review” by the same disciplinary authority undermines fairness.
• It protects retirees from perpetual litigation by refusing liberty to reinitiate proceedings on the same set of charges after retirement, promoting finality.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision (with reasoning)

• Whether an Enquiry Officer can base liability on an uncharged head like “negligence” when the charge-sheet alleges misappropriation/forgery.
  Decision: No. Travelling beyond the charge-sheet is illegal; punishment cannot rest on findings outside the framed articles. The negligence remark was conjectural and outside jurisdiction.
• Whether vigilance papers and an FIR, not proved through witnesses before the Enquiry Officer, can be treated as substantive evidence in a departmental enquiry.
  Decision: No. Such materials are not evidence unless proved; suspicion cannot replace proof.
• Whether the Disciplinary Authority could hold the charges “proved” when the Enquiry Officer did not find any of the five charges established.
  Decision: No. The second show-cause asserting proof of charges was unsustainable; the Enquiry Officer had accepted the defence on the framed charges.
• Administrative role in the diesel subsidy scheme: was the BDO responsible for distribution among beneficiaries?
  Decision: No. Under departmental circulars and the controlling authority’s clarification, subsidy distribution/list preparation rested with Gram Sabha and Panchayat Secretary; the BDO’s role was limited to accounting.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• (Not explicitly detailed as “by parties” in the text; primary authorities appear in the Court’s analysis. If any party-specific citations were made, they are not distinctly recorded in the available extract.)

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 — suspicion cannot be treated as proof in a domestic enquiry.
• Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2006) 4 SCC 713 — findings cannot rest on hypothesis or ipse dixit; must be based on cogent evidence.
• Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC 618 — statements relied upon must be proved through witness examination; otherwise cannot be acted upon.
• Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 — vigilance/IO materials and FIR are not evidence unless proved; FIR is not substantive evidence in departmental enquiries.
• Subsequent Supreme Court decisions following Roop Singh Negi: (2017) 2 SCC 308; (2013) 4 SCC 301; 2013 (2) SCALE 348 — generally denying liberty to restart enquiries on the same charges.

Case Title

Letters Patent Appeal No. 802 of 2019 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1012 of 2017, Patna High Court.

Case Number

LPA No. 802 of 2019; CWJC No. 1012 of 2017.

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 618

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble the Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar (Oral Judgment by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar). Date of Judgment: 24.02.2021.

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the appellant: Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate.
• For the respondents (State): Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, AAG-10.

Link to Judgment

MyM4MDIjMjAxOSMxI04=-YC91jcPU9e4=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.