Patna High Court
Alok Ranjan vs The National Institute Of Technology on 1 May, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.117 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.119 of 2020
======================================================
Alok Ranjan Son of Sri Giridhary Prasad Resident of Vishwalok,
Mangalasthan, Ramchandrapur, Bihar Sharif, P.O. - Bihar Sharif, District-
Nalanda.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The National Institute of Technology Patna through its Director.
2. The Director, National Institute of Technology, Patna.
3. The Registrar, National Institute of Technology, Patna.
4. Dr. Rajiv Sinha, Professor, Earth Science Department, IIT Kanpur (U.P.).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shekhar Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Satyendra Rai, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Adv.
Mr. Mritunjay Harsh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 01-05-2025
The appellant has assailed the order of learned
Single Judge dated 07.02.2022, passed in C.W.J.C. No.
119 of 2020.
2. The appellant was appointed as a Lecturer on
07.03.2006
with the respondent Institute. He was
pursuing Ph.D. course. On account of certain alleged
allegation, he was debarred in Ph.D. course, which was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
subject matter of litigation in C.W.J.C. No. 19403 of
2016 and in which he had suffered an order.
Simultaneously, departmental inquiry was initiated on
21.09.2015 while framing two charges, they are as
under:-
"Article-I
That Mr. Alok Ranjan, Assistant
Professor, Electrical Engineering
Dept. and also registered for
Doctoral Program(Ph.D.) in electrical
Engineering bearing roll no.
135EE05 as part time candidate has
been charged for committing gross
misconduct and unfair practice as
faculty and employee of the Institute
by taking away one blank answer
book of the mid semester
examination - 2014 while he was on
duty as invigilator in room no.
CSE_CR_FF on 13.03.2014 which is
not acceptable as an ethical and
good moral behavior from a
permanent faculty and employee of
an Institute of National importance
i.e. NIT Patna.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
Article-II
That Mr. Alok Ranjan, Assistant
Professor, Electrical Engineering
Dept. has committed a gross
misconduct and unfair practice that
he used the same answer book for
answering his own paper of Ph.D.
course work in afternoon session of
mid-semester examination for
course EE750 power system
protection on 13.03.2014 as an
examinee (candidate) which he had
unauthorizedly taken away from
examination room in the forenoon
session of mid-semester examination
dated 13.03.2014 where he was
deployed as an invigilator. Mr. Alok
Ranjan brought this answer book pre
written answers and submitted to the
invigilator on 13.03.2014 in the
afternoon session as if it was his
bonafide answer book thus trying to
cheat and intentionally committing a
gross misconduct with malafide
intention of wrongful gain."
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
3. The appellant had demanded documents narrated
in Annexure - III to the Charge Memo dated 21.09.2015
on 28.09.2015 and it was not provided by the disciplinary
authority. Resultantly, he was compelled to file objections
without an opportunity of perusal of the documents
referred in Annexure - III, document no. 1 to 12, he had
submitted objections on 01.10.2015. Thereafter, he had
demanded once again furnishing of documents to be
relied in the departmental inquiry on 07.10.2015 for
which also there was no response from the Disciplinary
Authority.
4. The Inquiring Officer concluded the inquiry on
11.10.2015 during the time at 10:30 A.M to 1:30 P.M.
After taking note of 12 documents and examination of 4
witnesses and proceeded to prepare report insofar as
proving the alleged charges and the report had been
submitted to the disciplinary authority on 10.02.2016.
5. Disciplinary authority issued second show-
cause notice along with Inquiring Officer's report on
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
28.11.2016. The appellant demanded once again certain
documents on 26.04.2017 but the same was not
provided. In this backdrop, disciplinary authority
proceeded to have the opinion of CVC advice. On
05.08.2019 CVC gave its advice to the extent that it is a
case of imposition of major penalty. In this backdrop, the
appellant sought representation cited insofar as seeking
opinion from the CVC to supply the same to the appellant
and it was not supplied. In this backdrop, the disciplinary
authority proceeded to impose penalty of removal from
service on 15.10.2019 and it was approved of Board of
Governors. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
removal order, appellant preferred C.W.J.C. No. 119 of
2020. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ
Petition. Resultantly, the present L.P.A. is presented on
behalf of the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated each of
the contention urged and it has been culled out in para-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
18. For non-compliance time and again requested
documents have not made available to the appellant
which are part and parcel of the disciplinary proceedings
as is evident from the Annexure-III of the Charge Memo
dated 21.09.2015. If the disciplinary authority is relying
on the list of documents cited at Annexure-III to the
Charge Memo dated 21.09.2015, in all fairness, he
should have replied to the appellant's request for supply
of documents from time to time by reasoned order. On
the other hand, he has slept over the matter resulted in
violation of principles of natural justice. It is further
submitted that disciplinary authority appointed Inquiring
Officer who is one of the Board of governing member by
name Dr. Rajiv Sinha, who would be the next higher
authority to the disciplinary authority. He has also
participated in approving the removal order. In other
words, he has acted as an Inquiring Officer as well as
participated in approving the penalty order. It is further
submitted that legal issues violated by the disciplinary
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
authority under Central Civil CCA Rules vitiate removal
order. It is further submitted that Inquiring Officer has
concluded the departmental inquiry on 11.10.2015
between 10:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. insofar as examining
the twelve documents and four witnesses. In not
providing the cited documents in Annexure-III to the
Charge Memo and taking the same material for the
purpose of proving the charges by the Presiding Officer
and Inquiring Officer would result in violation of principles
of natural justice. These are the issues which are not
considered by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the order
of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
Resultantly removal order is to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
resisted the aforementioned contentions and supported
the order of the learned Single Judge. He has pointed out
that the appellant's conduct is required to be taken into
consideration with reference to the fact that he was
debarred in Ph.D. course and it was subject matter of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
litigation in C.W.J.C. No. 19403 of 2016 and it has been
affirmed by the learned Single Judge. Almost identical
charges are framed in the present disciplinary
proceedings. Therefore, no interference is warranted. He
has taken us through the various paragraphs of the
learned Single Judge order particularly paras 9, 11, 29,
32 to the extent that documents have been provided to
the appellant. No prejudice is caused insofar as
appointment of Inquiring Officer, who is one of the Board
members (BOG member), the same has been appreciated
by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present LPA is
liable to be rejected.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties.
9. Undisputed facts are that appellant was
subjected to disciplinary proceedings insofar as framing
two charges narrated (supra) vide Charge Memo dated
21.09.2015. Perusal of the records, it is evident that as
soon as Charge Memo was issued to the appellant, he had
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
demanded list of documents vide Annexure-III to the
Charge Memo dated 21.09.2105 on 28.09.2015. The
same was not provided or it was rejected. Resultantly,
appellant was compelled to file objection to the Charge
Memo on 01.10.2015. Thereafter, on 07.10.2015, he
had demanded supply of documents and the same was
not provided. The appellant, in the absence of documents,
was compelled to face departmental inquiry on
11.10.2015 and in a single day, the Inquiring Officer has
concluded inquiry while taking note of document no. 1 to
12 and four witnesses statement has been recorded. He
had submitted report on 10.02.2016. It is to be noted
that even at the stage of furnishing reply to the Show-
Cause notice, appellant had demanded supply of
documents on 26.04.2017 for which also there is no
response. The matter was referred to CVC advice. CVC
advice is for imposition of major penalty. The CVC advice
has been sought with reference to the appellant's
representation and other related documents. CVC has
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
expressed that it is a case for imposition of major penalty.
Thereafter, the disciplinary authority proceeded to impose
a penalty of removal from service. The Inquiring Officer
who was one of the BOG member who is biased and
stated to have participated in the final order of removal
on 15.10.2019 however it is disputed by the respondents.
Para-18 of the learned Single Judge order reads as
under:-
"18. The petitioner has challenged the
aforesaid order on several counts, namely,
(I) non-supply of documents demanded by
him; (ii) the disciplinary proceeding having
been concluded in hot haste; (iii) personal
bias of the Enquiry Officer, namely,
respondent No. 4, who was also a Member
of Board of Governors in the NIT; and (iv)
that the inquiry was held in pursuance to a
Rule [Central Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 14], which
was not existent at the time of initiation of
the departmental proceeding against him."
10. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
insofar as non-providing document nos. 1 to 12 vide
Annexure III to Charge Memo dated 21.09.2015. On the
other hand, in para 23 it is stated as under:-
" 23. The petitioner was given the
list of documents which were
proposed to be used in the
departmental proceeding which
included the relevant answer-book
deposited by him; the report of the
invigilators and the finding of the
Unfair Means Committee. The
petitioner actually wanted those
documents as also the Invigilators
Duty Chart."
There is no iota of material on what date, which are
the documents supplied to the appellant among document
nos. 1 to 12 are not reflected. Therefore, it is only
apprehension that documents have been supplied to the
appellant.
11. The scope of judicial review in a disciplinary
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
proceedings has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the following decisions:
(a). State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Umesh
reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563;
Para 22 reads as under:-
"22. In the exercise of judicial
review, the Court does not act as an
appellate forum over the findings of
the disciplinary authority. The court
does not reappreciate the evidence
on the basis of which the finding of
misconduct has been arrived at in the
course of a disciplinary enquiry. The
Court in the exercise of judicial
review must restrict its review to
determine whether:
(i) the rules of natural justice
have been complied with;
(ii) the finding of misconduct is
based on some evidence;
(iii) the statutory rules
governing the conduct of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
disciplinary enquiry have been
observed; and
(iv) whether the findings of the
disciplinary authority suffer
from perversity; and
(v) the penalty is
disproportionate to the proven
misconduct. [State of
Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj,
(2020) 3 SCC 423 : (2020) 1
SCC (L&S) 547; Union of India
v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7
SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S)
1806; B.C. Chaturvedi v.
Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC
749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80;
R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab,
(1999) 8 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC
(L&S) 1424 and CISF v. Abrar
Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507 :
(2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 310]
(b). Union of India and Others vs. P.
Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610.
Para 12 & 13 read as under:-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
"12. Despite the well-settled position,
it is painfully disturbing to note that the
High Court has acted as an appellate
authority in the disciplinary proceedings,
reappreciating even the evidence before
the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I
was accepted by the disciplinary authority
and was also endorsed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary
proceedings, the High Court is not and
cannot act as a second court of first appeal.
The High Court, in exercise of its powers
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
of India, shall not venture into
reappreciation of the evidence. The High
Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a
competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held
according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the
principles of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings;
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
(d) the authorities have
disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by
some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and
merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have
allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant or
extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very
face of it, is so wholly arbitrary
and capricious that no
reasonable person could ever
have arrived at such
conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority
had erroneously failed to admit
the admissible and material
evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority
had erroneously admitted
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
inadmissible evidence which
influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based
on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court shall
not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the
conclusions in the enquiry, in
case the same has been
conducted in accordance with
law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the
evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the
evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some
legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
(vi) correct the error of fact
however grave it may appear
to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality
of punishment unless it shocks
its conscience."
(c) Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs.
Girja Shankar;
Para 22 reads as under:-
"22. The sixty-five page report
has been sent to the Managing Director of
the Nigam against the petitioner recording
therein that the charges against him stand
proved -- what is the basis? Was the
enquiry officer justified in coming to such a
conclusion on the basis of the charge-sheet
only? The answer cannot possibly be in the
affirmative; if the records have been
considered, the immediate necessity would
be to consider as to who is the person who
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
has produced the same and the next issue
could be as regards the nature of the
records -- unfortunately there is not a
whisper in the rather longish report in that
regard. Where is the presenting officer?
Where is the notice fixing the date of
hearing? Where is the list of witnesses?
What has happened to the defence
witnesses? All these questions arise but
unfortunately no answer is to be found in
the rather longish report. But if one does
not have it -- can it be termed to be in
consonance with the concept of justice or
the same tantamounts to a total
miscarriage of justice. The High Court
answers it as miscarriage of justice and we
do lend our concurrence therewith. The
whole issue has been dealt with in such a
way that it cannot but be termed to be
totally devoid of any justifiable reason and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
in this context a decision of the King's
Bench Division in the case of Denby
(William) and Sons Ltd. v. Minister of
Health [(1936) 1 KB 337 : 105 LJKB 134 :
154 LT 180] may be considered. Swift, J.
while dealing with the administrative duties
of the Minister has the following to state:
"I do not think that it is right to say that the
Minister of Health or any other officer of
the State who has to administer an Act of
Parliament is a judicial officer. He is an
administrative officer, carrying out the
duties of an administrative office, and
administering the provisions of particular
Acts of Parliament. From time to time, in
the course of administrative duties, he has
to perform acts which require him to
interfere with the rights and property of
individuals, and in doing that the courts
have said that he must act fairly and
reasonably; not capriciously, but in
accordance with the ordinary dictates of
justice. The performance of those duties
entails the exercise of the Minister's
discretion, and I think what was said by
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
Lord Halsbury in Sharp v. Wakefield [1891
AC 173 : 60 LJ MC 73 : 64 LT 180 (HL)]
(AC at p. 179) is important to consider with
reference to the exercise of such discretion.
He there said:
' "Discretion" means when it is said that
something is to be done within the
discretion of the authorities that that
something is to be done according to the
rules of reason and justice, not according to
private opinion: Rooke case [(1598) 5 Co
Rep 99b, 100a] ; according to law, and not
humour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague,
and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it
must be exercised within the limit, to which
an honest man competent to the discharge
of his office ought to confine himself.' "
(d) U.O.I. and others. vs. Gyanchand
Chattar, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78;
para 33 to 35 read as under:-
" 33. In a case where the charge-
sheet is accompanied with the statement of
facts and the allegation may not be specific
in charge-sheet but may be crystal clear
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
from the statement of charges, in such a
situation as both constitute the same
document, it may not be held that as the
charge was not specific, definite and clear,
the enquiry stood vitiated. (Vide State of
A.P. v. S.Sree Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC
1723] .) Thus, where a delinquent is
served a charge-sheet without giving
specific and definite charge and no
statement of allegation is served along with
the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands
vitiated as having been conducted in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
34. In Sawai Singh v. State of
Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454 : 1986 SCC
(L&S) 662 : AIR 1986 SC 995] this Court
held that even in a domestic enquiry, the
charge must be clear, definite and specific
as it would be difficult for any delinquent to
meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced
should not be perfunctory even if the
delinquent does not take the defence or
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
make a protest against that the charges are
vague, that does not save the enquiry from
being vitiated for the reason that there
must be fair play in action, particularly, in
respect of an order involving adverse or
penal consequences.
35. In view of the above, law can be
summarised that an enquiry is to be
conducted against any person giving strict
adherence to the statutory provisions and
principles of natural justice. The charges
should be specific, definite and giving
details of the incident which formed the
basis of charges. No enquiry can be
sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to
be conducted fairly, objectively and not
subjectively. Finding should not be
perverse or unreasonable, nor the same
should be based on conjectures and
surmises. There is a distinction in proof and
suspicion. Every act or omission on the part
of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct.
The authority must record reasons for
arriving at the finding of fact in the context
of the statute defining the misconduct."
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
12. Taking note of the principles laid down in the
aforementioned decisions, Writ Court can interfere only if
there is any violation of principles of natural justice and
violation of any statutory provisions or regulation insofar
as commencement of a disciplinary proceedings and its
conclusion. In the present case, in not providing
document nos. 1 to 12 despite demanded on behalf of the
appellant from time to time at various stages like on
28.09.2015, 07.10.2015, 26.04.2017, 28.08.2019. Not
even iota of reply on behalf of the disciplinary authority
whether appellant is entitled to such of those documents
demanded by him or relevant for the purpose of
adjudicating the disciplinary proceedings or not? On the
other hand, disciplinary authority remained silent, results
in violation of principles of natural justice which is one of
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the aforementioned decisions. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Central Organisation for Railway
Electrification v. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
joint venture company, reported in (2024) SCC Online
SC 3219 (para 76 to 78) elaborately considered issue
relating to principles of natural justice and decision would
assist appellant's case. At this juncture, it is necessary to
reproduce Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965.
" (4) (a) The Disciplinary Authority shall
deliver or cause to be delivered to the
Government servant a copy of the article of
charge, the statement of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of
documents and witnesses by which each
article or charges is proposed to be
sustained.
(b) On receipt of the articles of charge, the
Government servant shall be required to
submit his written statement of defence, if
he so desires, and also state whether he
desires to be heard in person, within a
period of fifteen days, which may be
further extended for a period not exceeding
fifteen days at a time for reasons to be
recorded in writing by the Disciplinary
Authority or any other Authority authorized
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
by the Disciplinary Authority on his behalf;
Provided that under no circumstances, the
extension of time for filing written
statement of defence shall exceed forty-
five days from the date of receipt of articles
of charge. "
[underline supplied]
The aforementioned provision mandates disciplinary
authority to provide Charge Memo, statement of
imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses.
Therefore, the aforementioned statutory provisions has
been violated, consequently, complete proceedings stands
vitiated.
13. Inquiring Officer seems to be a superior
authority to the disciplinary authority as is evident from
the fact that the Inquiring Officer is one Dr. Rajiv Sinha,
who is BOG Member and the respondents have not
apprised this Court that Dr. Rajiv Sinha recused himself
while approving the removal order dated 15.10.2019. In
other words, we have to draw inference that he had
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
participated in approving the removal order dated
15.10.2019. In all fairness, he should have recused
himself having regard to the fact that he was appointed
as an Inquiring Officer and he had submitted report
insofar as proving the charges to the Disciplinary
Authority. It is not fair for on Inquiry Officer to participate
in approving the penalty in a disciplinary proceeding. The
Inquiry Officer's role is to conduct an impartial inquiry and
provide findings, while disciplinary authority is responsible
for deciding on the appropriate order of exoneration or
imposition of penalty based on findings. These are all the
legal issues which were required to be examined by the
learned Single Judge and the same have not been
examined, resultantly, there is an error on the face of the
record. Further, merely the appellant was debarred in
Ph.D. course and it has been affirmed by this Court in
CWJC No. 19403 of 2016, the same cannot be taken into
consideration. On the other hand, it is an extraneous
material for the purpose of two charges narrated supra.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
Disciplinary authority must have prejudiced his mind
insofar as in debarring the appellant from the Ph.D.
course and its affirmation in CWJC No. 19403 of 2016. It
is to be noted that in the second show cause notice along
with Inquiring Officer's report, disciplinary authority
should have taken note of the material relating to
cancellation of Ph.D. course and its affirmation by the
learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 19403 of 2016. On
the other hand, the same is not reflected in the second
show cause notice. This issue will reveal that disciplinary
authority is biased against the appellant insofar as
imposition of penalty of removal from service.
14. Taking note of these factual and legal
issues, the impugned order dated 15.10.2019, Annexure-
07.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC
No. 119 of 2020 are set aside.
15. Disciplinary Authority/Appointing Authority
is hereby directed to reinstate the appellant and extend all
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
service and monetary benefits from time to time on par
with his immediate junior. The above exercise shall be
completed within a period of six months. Insofar as
reinstating is concerned, the appellant shall be reinstated
within a period of one month from today.
16. The present LPA No. 117 of 2022 stands
allowed.
17. At this stage, learned Sr. counsel, Mr. Y.V.
Giri, for the respondent submitted that in the light of the
above order, the disciplinary proceedings be remanded to
the Disciplinary Authority to commence the inquiry from
the defective stage.
18. Having regard to the charges and the
aforementioned submission on behalf of the respondent,
we are of the view that the matter requires to be
remanded to the disciplinary authority to commence the
inquiry from the defective stage in the light of Hon'ble
Supreme Court decisions in the case of Managing
Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
reported in [(1993) 4 SCC 727] read with Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Ors. v.
Ananta Saha & Ors, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142.
19. The disciplinary authority shall commence
inquiry after providing documents mentioned in Annexure
III to the charge memo dated 21.09.2015. Thereafter,
the Appellant has to furnish his reply to the charge memo
afresh. Further, the disciplinary authority is hereby
directed to proceed afresh from the aforementioned
defective stage and conclude the disciplinary proceedings
strictly adhering to the relevant CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965,
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of
this order. The disciplinary authority is hereby directed to
take note of the aforementioned principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court insofar as disciplinary
proceedings to the extent that there should not be any
violation of statutory provision of law and denial of
principle of natural justice. In this regard, appellant is
requested to cooperate in the matter. If the inquiry is not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.117 of 2022 dt.01-05-2025
completed within a period of six months from today, in
that event it is deemed that disciplinary proceedings
stands terminated.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Nirajkrs/Prabhak
ar
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.05.2025
Transmission Date NA
