Court holds major penalty imposed without examining witnesses and ignoring exculpatory evidence violates natural justice; composite punishment from two independent proceedings struck down
In a significant judgment delivered on September 29, 2026, the Patna High Court, presided by Justice Kumar Manish, quashed the punitive orders against Pawan Kumar, a government engineer in Bihar, arising out of departmental enquiries that were found to be procedurally flawed and violative of natural justice.
The petitioner, Pawan Kumar, was serving as Executive Engineer in the Minor Water Resources Department, Bihar, when he faced two separate departmental proceedings based on allegations stemming from a joint inspection report. The charges included excess payments on tube well installations totaling around Rs. 3.54 crore, non-functionality of the tube wells, and irregularities related to waste material auctioning. Following these enquiries, the department imposed a composite punishment on Kumar by reverting him from Executive Engineer to Assistant Engineer and issuing a censure.
Kumar challenged the punishment orders by filing a writ petition, contending that the departmental enquiries were vitiated due to grave procedural lapses. The Court's detailed scrutiny revealed multiple violations of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 ("CCA Rules, 2005"), particularly Rule 17 which governs the procedure for imposing major penalties.
Key findings of the Court included:
- The charge sheet did not include a list of documents or witnesses as mandated under Rule 17(3)(ii)(a) and (b), thereby denying the petitioner a clear understanding of the case to be met.
- The enquiry officer failed to examine any witnesses or produce documentary evidence during the enquiry, including the authors of the joint inspection report and the author of the second charge. Consequently, Kumar was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine these crucial witnesses, infringing the principle of audi alteram partem.
- An exculpatory report from the Technical Examiner Cell of the Vigilance Department, which cleared Kumar of financial irregularities, was submitted during the enquiry but was completely ignored in the enquiry report. The Court emphasized that an enquiry officer exercising quasi-judicial functions must consider all relevant material, including evidence favorable to the accused, and provide reasoned conclusions.
- The department impermissibly imposed a single composite punishment based on findings from two independent and unconnected departmental proceedings without issuing any order for common proceedings as required under Rule 22 of the CCA Rules, 2005.
The Court relied on authoritative precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772, to underscore that departmental enquiries must be conducted fairly, with adherence to statutory procedures and natural justice principles. It held that findings of guilt recorded without proof, without examination of witnesses, and without providing a fair hearing are unsustainable.
Considering the lengthy delay in proceedings and the absence of any evidence being produced initially, the Court declined to remit the matter for a fresh enquiry, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh (2025 PLJR SC 331) that repeated opportunities to prove charges after significant lapse of time and retirement are unjust and unfair.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court quashed both the order of punishment dated May 9, 2018, and the review order dated August 6, 2018, thereby restoring Kumar's service status. The Court left it to the competent authority to decide the treatment of the intervening period and consequential monetary benefits in accordance with law.
This judgment reinforces the imperative for government departments to strictly adhere to procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings against public servants, ensuring justice and fairness are not sacrificed in administrative expediency.
Bottom Line:
Departmental enquiry for major penalty is vitiated where no witness is examined, no document is proved, no opportunity of cross-examination is granted, and a composite punishment is imposed on the basis of two independent proceedings without any order for common proceeding under Rule 22 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.
Statutory provision(s):
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 Rule 17(3)(ii)(a), Rule 17(3)(ii)(b), Rule 17(4), Rule 17(6)(iii), Rule 17(14), Rule 22; Constitution of India, Article 14, Article 226
Pawan Kumar v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2988269
