Justice Dr. Anshuman sets aside orders by Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation

In Manish Kumar vs.The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Dr. Anshuman delivered a 21-page long judgement dated May 14, 2026, wherein, he concluded: "20. In the present case, although the disagreement note refers to alleged violations of Letter Nos. 11067 dated 12.12.2013, 435 dated 13.01.2014, 7714 dated 06.12.2013, and 1162 dated 26.12.2013, it transpires that all those documents had already been duly considered by the Inquiry Officer, as reflected in paragraph 9 of the inquiry report. However, the Disciplinary Authority has failed to assign any specific or cogent reason as to why it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. This Court has also examined the deed of agreement and deed of pledge referred to in Letter No. 435 dated 13.01.2014 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and finds that the conclusions drawn by the Inquiry Officer are in accordance with law. In the absence of any specific indication of violation in the disagreement note, this Court holds that the disagreement memo dated 11.03.2025 is legally unsustainable and suffers from material defects as well as in gross violation of Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 2005." 

The other three respondents were: 2. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, 3. The Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, and  4. Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (BSFCSC).  

The judgement reads:"....upon perusal of the order of punishment contained in Memo No. 10383 dated 06.06.2025, it is evident that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second show-cause notice has not been duly considered. A mere statement that the reply has been “analysed” by a quasi-judicial authority, without any discussion or reasoning, does not satisfy the requirement of law. Accordingly, the said order of punishment is held to be bad in law and liable to be set aside."

Justice Dr. Anshuman observed: "22. Since the disagreement memo itself is vitiated in law, and the order of punishment is based upon such defective disagreement, the consequential order passed by the Reviewing Authority also cannot be sustained, as it is based on proceedings conducted in violation of Rule 18(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005. Accordingly, both the review order contained in Memo No. 12577 dated 09.07.2025 and the original order of punishment contained in Memo No. 10383 dated 06.06.2025 are hereby set aside." 

The writ petition was filed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Resolution contained in Memo No. 10383 dated 06.06.2025, issued under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of censure (pertaining to the allegation year 2013–14) along with stoppage of one annual increment of salary with non-cumulative effect. The petitioner further prays for quashing of the Resolution contained in Memo No. 12577 dated 09.07.2025, issued under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the review petition preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner sought a direction upon the respondent authorities to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner with effect from the due date, including promotion, to which the petitioner is legally entitled. The petitioner had prayed for issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) as the Hig Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

From a plain reading of these provisions, it was evident that the Disciplinary Authority was under an obligation to assign reasons for disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.