Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In this case, the Patna High Court reviewed a disciplinary action taken against a government officer serving as an Assistant Audit Officer. The officer had been accused of misconduct and penalized with a one-stage pay reduction for three years, which also affected his future increments.
The disciplinary proceedings began with the officer’s suspension on 08.08.2013, followed by a formal charge-sheet on 24.10.2013 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. While the officer denied all seven charges, his suspension was revoked on the same day he submitted his defense.
However, the disciplinary authority decided that a common inquiry would be conducted under Rule 18 of the CCS Rules, 1965. This meant that the officer and two of his colleagues—also under similar allegations—would be jointly tried. The issue arose when the Inquiring Officer ignored this direction and instead held separate, individual inquiries.
Eventually, the Inquiring Officer found six charges to be partly proven and one not proven. The disciplinary authority disagreed with this finding and imposed a penalty, leading the officer to challenge the decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench. The Tribunal rejected his appeal, prompting the officer to move the High Court.
The High Court held that the disciplinary authority had indeed issued a valid order for a joint inquiry, and once that decision was made, it was mandatory for the Inquiring Officer to comply with it. By conducting individual inquiries, the officer violated procedural rules. Moreover, the disciplinary authority never formally withdrew the common inquiry order, which compounded the procedural flaw.
Additionally, the court noted other serious irregularities:
- The list of witnesses required to prove the charges was marked as “nil” despite the presence of 26 supporting documents.
- No witnesses were presented to verify the documents, contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in S.C. Girotra vs. United Commercial Bank.
- The disciplinary authority failed to follow Rule 15 when it disagreed with the Inquiring Officer’s report and issued the penalty without properly examining or justifying how unproven charges could now be considered proven.
As a result, the High Court found that both the inquiry process and the subsequent confirmation by the Tribunal were legally flawed. All three orders—penalty, appeal rejection, and the CAT judgment—were set aside.
The court directed the disciplinary authority to start the process afresh, from the point of procedural defect. This includes properly listing witnesses and holding a lawful inquiry, which must be completed within six months.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)
This judgment reinforces the importance of strict procedural compliance in government disciplinary proceedings. Even if there is evidence of misconduct, any failure to follow mandatory rules—such as holding a joint inquiry when ordered or failing to present witnesses—can invalidate the entire process.
For government departments, it serves as a cautionary reminder to adhere to Rules 14, 15, and 18 of the CCS Rules, 1965. For public servants, it underscores their right to a fair inquiry that respects both procedural safeguards and natural justice.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether the Inquiring Officer could ignore a direction for joint inquiry under Rule 18
→ No, the Inquiring Officer was bound to conduct a joint inquiry once ordered. - Whether the disciplinary proceedings violated Rule 14(4)
→ Yes, as the disciplinary authority failed to provide a list of witnesses despite citing multiple documents. - Whether Rule 15 was followed while disagreeing with the inquiry report
→ No, the disciplinary authority did not follow proper procedure while issuing penalty. - Whether the CAT erred in rejecting the petition
→ Yes, it failed to consider the procedural lapses in the inquiry process.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- S.C. Girotra vs. United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank), 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 212
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- S.C. Girotra vs. United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank), 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 212
Case Title
Vikash Kumar vs. Union of India & Others
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5306 of 2020
Citation(s)
2023 (1) PLJR 582
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Mr. Namrata Dubey, Mr. Pushkar Bhardwaj
- For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Kumar Arun
Link to Judgment
MTUjNTMwNiMyMDIwIzEjTg==-weCw8Vq8JiM=
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.
