JUDGMENT : SANDEEP KUMAR, J. 1. Since the facts of these cases are same and similar, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2 . In C.W.J.C. No.3604 of 2025, the petitioner (Michael Francis) has challenged the order contained in memo no.66 dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, by which the petitioner- Michael Francis he has been visited with the punishment of dismissal from service with a further stipulation that nothing shall be payable to him for the period of suspension. In C.W.J.C. No.4007 of 2025, the petitioner - Sujeet Kumar, has challenged the order contained in memo no.67 dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, by which he has been visited with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with a further stipulation that nothing shall be payable to the petitioner except subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. The petitioners have also challenged the appellate orders dated 19.12.2024 and 08.01.2025 respectively, by which the appeal filed by the petitioners against the orders of punishment, have been rejected by the Appellate Authority. They have also prayed to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of consequential arrears of salary for the period during which they has been kept out of employment and also to make payment of full salary to the petitioners for the period of suspension after deducting the subsistence allowance already paid to them. 3 . The facts of these cases are that both the petitioners were appointed on Class-IV posts in the Bihar School Examination Board and they were promoted to the post of Routine Clerk in the years 2008. Whereafter, both the petitioners have been further promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 2012. In the year 2018, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioners primarily on the allegation that they were unauthorizedly absent from their duties and for their involvement/role in the criminal case bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No.452 of 2018 dated 19.07.2018. Against the petitioner-Micheal Francis, altogether seven charges have been framed, which primarily revolved around the allegation of unauthorized absence from the duty and for his involvement/role in the criminal case bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No.452 of 2018 dated 19.07.2018. Against the petitioner-Micheal Francis, altogether seven charges have been framed, which primarily revolved around the allegation of unauthorized absence from the duty and for his involvement/role in the criminal case bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No.452 of 2018 dated 19.07.2018. Thereafter, a supplementary memo of charge was also submitted wherein one additional charge has been framed against the aforesaid petitioner that despite being suspended, he did not join his assigned headquarters for about five months. 4. So far as petitioner - Sujeet Kumar is concerned, altogether five charges have been framed against him, which also revolved around his unauthorized absence from the duties and also his involvement/role in the criminal case bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No.452 of 2018 dated 19.07.2018. 5. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer issued memo dated 15.07.2019 upon the petitioners annexing the charges levelled against them and directed the petitioners to submit their reply/defence. The petitioners by filing representation/ applications requested to supply certain document, based on which, charges were levelled against them. Whereafter, the petitioners have submitted their written responses/replies. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted the enquiry report to the respondent-Board finding the charges against the petitioner- Michael Francis to be true whereas, against the petitioner-Sujit Kumar it has been concluded that the involvement of the petitioner cannot be ruled out and he cannot be exonerated from the charges. Based on the enquiry report, second show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners, to which the petitioners have filed their respective response/reply. Upon considering the reply to the second show-cause, the disciplinary authority issued the impugned orders contained in memo nos.66 and 67 both dated 16.01.2024 dismissing the petitioner-Michael Francis from the service and compulsorily retiring the petitioner - Sujeet Kumar from the service. 6. For better appreciating of facts of both these cases, it will be relevant to quote the impugned orders of punishment. The impugned order passed in the case of petitioner - Michael Francis reads as under:- 7. The impugned order passed in the case of petitioner - Sujeet Kumar reads as under - 8 . Thereafter, both the petitioners preferred appeals against the impugned order of punishment before the Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board. However, since the aforesaid appeals were not being decided, the petitioners moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.6839 of 2024 (petitioner- Michael Francis) and C.W.J.C. No.6940 of 2024 (petitioner – Sujeet Kumar). Thereafter, both the petitioners preferred appeals against the impugned order of punishment before the Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board. However, since the aforesaid appeals were not being decided, the petitioners moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.6839 of 2024 (petitioner- Michael Francis) and C.W.J.C. No.6940 of 2024 (petitioner – Sujeet Kumar). A coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 28.11.2024 and 12.12.2024 respectively disposed of the said writ petitions with a direction to the respondent authorities to decided the appeals preferred by the petitioners. Thereafter, the aforesaid appeals came to be dismissed by the appellate authority vide impugned orders dated 19.12.2024 and 08.01.2025. 9 . Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that the disciplinary proceeding conducted in the case of the present petitioners suffers from grave procedural errors, inasmuch as, despite making an express request for the list of documents based on which the charges have been levelled against the petitioners, no such document was ever provided to the petitioners. 10 . Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the memo of charge does not contain the list of witnesses or the list of documents, which is in complete violation of Rule 17(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and the same has caused prejudiced to the petitioners in reasonably defending themselves. 11 . Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has categorically submitted that the F.I.R. bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No.452 of 2018 was registered on the basis of the preliminary enquiry conducted by a Three Men Committee comprising of the Chief Vigilance Officer, who subsequently, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings. It is, therefore, the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that since the aforesaid officer had already conducted the preliminary enquiry, he could not have acted in the capacity of Enquiry Officer in the department proceeding as it is well settled that no one should be a Judge in his own cause (nemo judex in causa sua). The Enquiry Officer, in the departmental proceeding, has placed considerable reliance on the preliminary report prepared by Three Men Committee constituted by the Board, which is thoroughly misplaced since the aforesaid report itself was prepared by the Chief Vigilance Officer himself, who has now stepped into the shoes of Enquiry Officer and was in fact enquiring into his own report. 12 . 12 . It has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the written statement of defense was required to be considered by the disciplinary authority before initiating the departmental proceeding but, in the present case, no such written statement/defence of the petitioner was sought by the disciplinary authority and it is the Enquiry Officer, who for the first time, directed the petitioner to submit his defence, which is in violation of Rule-17(4) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. 13 . Lastly, it has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the Enquiry Officer has placed heavy reliance on the confessional statement of accused- Vijay Kumar Tiwari @ Tiwari and his statement was recorded in the form of questionnaire while he was in police custody, but the petitioners have not been afforded an opportunity to cross- examine the aforesaid witness during the departmental proceeding. Further, call records between the petitioners and the accused of Kotwali P.S. Case No.452 of 2018 forms a central basis for arriving at a finding of guilt in the departmental proceeding, however, the call records have neither been produced much less proved in the departmental proceeding. 14 . By making the aforesaid submissions, it has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the disciplinary proceedings leading to dismissal and voluntary retirement of the petitioners respectively suffers from grave procedural lapses and deserves to be quashed. 15 . Per contra, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board that no prejudice was caused to the petitioners in the enquiry proceeding as they were afforded sufficient opportunity to defend their cases in line with the principles of natural justice and only thereafter, the punishment has been imposed upon the petitioners. 16 . In the counter affidavits filed by the answering respondents, the facts leading to initiation of departmental proceeding and punishment of the petitioners have been mentioned. Apart from the aforesaid facts, it has been stated that initially the petitioners were issued show-cause notices for their unauthorized absence from their duties, to which the petitioner did not respondent. 16 . In the counter affidavits filed by the answering respondents, the facts leading to initiation of departmental proceeding and punishment of the petitioners have been mentioned. Apart from the aforesaid facts, it has been stated that initially the petitioners were issued show-cause notices for their unauthorized absence from their duties, to which the petitioner did not respondent. Thereafter, it was detected that a fraud was committed upon the Board and by adopting fraudulent means changes were made in the tabulation register and computer data containing the result of BETET, 2011 and accordingly, the F.I.R. was instituted against some accused person including the employees of the Board. In course of the investigation of F.I.R., some persons were arrested, who disclosed the names of the petitioners to be involved in the fraudulent changes in the result of BETET, 2011. Thereafter in contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioners were suspended and memo of charge was served to them. After following due process of law, the punishment has been awarded to the petitioners considering the gravity of the charges. 17. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the impugned orders have been passed strictly in accordance with the statutory Regulations of the Bihar School Examination Board. The Board, being an autonomous body, is constituted under the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952. Section 17 of the aforesaid Act deals with the power of the Board to make Regulation consistent with the Act and accordingly, Regulations had been framed by the Board i.e. the Bihar School Examination Board Regulation, 1964. Further, chapter X of the aforesaid Regulation deals with service statutes for its employees wherein under Regulation 28 provides that save as otherwise provided in the Regulation the provisions of Bihar Service Code and Government Servant Conduct Rules, mutatis mutandis will apply to the employees of the Board. 18 . So far as the contention of the petitioners that the memo of charge was defective in absence of list of witnesses is concerned, it has been submitted that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was conducted in terms of Regulation of the Board and the petitioner was served with a detailed charge sheet and they have been given ample opportunity to defend their cases in the inquiry. 19 . I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. 20 . 19 . I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. 20 . From the records, it appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioners primarily on the allegation that they were unauthorizedly absent from their duties and for their involvement/role in tempering with the results of the BETET, 2011, for which a criminal case bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No.452 of 2018 was also registered. 21 . From the perusal of the memo of charge and enquiry report, it appears that the accused persons in the aforesaid F.I.R. in their statements have taken the name of these petitioners to be specifically involved in tampering with the result. Further, the Enquiry Officer has also placed reliance on the call records of the accused persons, however, the same has neither been produced nor proved in the departmental proceeding. Moreover, the memo of charge issued to the petitioners does not contain the list of witnesses and the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who had been questioned by way of a questionnaire in the police custody. 22. The Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 provides for mandatory statutory safeguards, such as, providing list of witness and documents in support of the charges while framing a memo of charge. Further, in the departmental proceeding, the delinquent may cross-examine the witness(s). 23. The Chapter – X of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulations, 1964 deals with service Statute. Regulation 54 provides for framing of memorandum of charges and holding of oral enquiry. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Sah vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported as 2011 SCC OnLine Pat 1148 had the occasion to consider the aforesaid Regulations of the Board in a similar circumstances where mandatory procedures were not followed. The coordinate Bench had categorically held that even under the Regulations of the Board, the memo of charge must be accompanied with the list of documents and list of witnesses. 24. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Jagdish Sah (supra) read as under:- “12. It may be appropriate at this stage to consider Regulations 53 and 54(a) & (b), which are quoted below:- “ 53 . Procedure for punishment. 24. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Jagdish Sah (supra) read as under:- “12. It may be appropriate at this stage to consider Regulations 53 and 54(a) & (b), which are quoted below:- “ 53 . Procedure for punishment. — When an employee is charged with an offence, every opportunity should be given to defend himself and following procedure should be strictly observed (a) A memo of charges should be issued against him; (b) A written statement of the defence if any offered should be obtained from him; (c) An oral enquiry should be held, in respect of cases involving the penalty of reduction, removal or dismissal from service, and (d) An order should be passed embodying the findings of the punishing authority. 54. F raming of Memorandum of charges : holding of oral enquiry and drafting of punishment order. (a) The following instructions should be observed in framing a memorandum of charges— (1) The grounds on which it is proposed to take action against an employee should be reduced to the form of definite charge or charges. (2) A statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case, should invariably be recorded in the memorandum. In no circumstances, however, should an opinion or anything that can be constructed as an opinion as to the guilt of the employee appear in the memorandum. (3) The employee should be required, within a reasonable time to be specified in the memorandum, to put in a written statement of his defence. He should also be required to state whether he desires to be heard in person, in respect of cases involving the punishment of reduction, removal or dismissal from service. (b) The circumstances in which an oral enquiry has to be held and the manner in which it should be conducted, are detailed below:— (1) If the employee who has been charged with an offence involving the punishment of reduction, removal or dismissal from service, desires to be heard in person, an oral enquiry must be held. It is also open to the punishing authority to direct that an oral enquiry should be held, even if the employee does not ask for it. It is also open to the punishing authority to direct that an oral enquiry should be held, even if the employee does not ask for it. (2) At the oral enquiry it is incumbent on the authority concerned to have oral evidence as to such of the allegations as are not admitted and to give the employee charged an opportunity (a) to cross- examine the witnesses, (b) to give evidence in person, and (c) to have such witnesses called as he may wish provided that the officer conducting the enquiry may, for special and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. (3) The proceeding of the oral enquiry should be reduced to writing and be signed by the enquiring officer and the employee charged.” 13. It is evident from the aforesaid statutory regulations that issuance of memo of charge is a mandatory requirement therein and the requirement of submitting list of witnesses and list of documents on which the employer proposes to rely in proving the said charge follow as a matter of course. It is also provided that an oral enquiry should be held where the punishment of reduction, removal or dismissal from service are involved. 14. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent Board that the petitioner had waived the requirement by not stating in his written statement of defence or thereafter that he desires to be heard in person has no legs to stand in view of the mandatory nature of the provisions regarding holding of oral enquiry. It is not for the proceedee to suo motu state as to whether he wishes to be heard in person but for the disciplinary authority to ensure that he is required to state whether he desires to be heard in person where a major punishment is to be given to him. There is nothing in the material on the record to show that the petitioner was ever required to state whether he desires to be heard in person. In fact, it has been kept open to the punishing authority to direct that oral enquiry should be held even if the employee does not ask for it. There is nothing in the material on the record to show that the petitioner was ever required to state whether he desires to be heard in person. In fact, it has been kept open to the punishing authority to direct that oral enquiry should be held even if the employee does not ask for it. Thus it is evident from the said provisions that the requirement of oral enquiry in case of major punishment is to be treated as mandatory unless the employee on being given an opportunity specifically states that he does not desire to be heard in person. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner at any time has stated that he did not desire to be heard in person. In the said circumstances, there can be no question of any waiver by the petitioner of a right which he was at no time asked to exercise in terms of the statutory provisions. 15. Moreover, this Court is of the view that it cannot be held in the present case that any departmental enquiry for major punishment has been held. It is only in the case of minor punishment that a show cause may be asked from an employee and upon receipt of his reply the disciplinary authority may pass an order inflicting punishment on not being satisfied with the same but when a major punishment is to be inflicted it is incumbent upon the enquiry officer to fix a date directing the petitioner to appear before him and even if the employer does not intend to examine any witness and to rely only upon documents, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to show that those documents did not point towards his guilt and cannot be relied upon in support of the charge. In the present matter, no such notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before the enquiry officer and everything has been done behind the back of the petitioner depriving him of the opportunity to examine and assail the documents which have been relied upon by the enquiry officer and also the opportunity to produce his own witnesses or to give evidence in person. Thus, the enquiry proceedings have to be held to be vitiated and not to be relied upon for passing any order of punishment. 16. Thus, the enquiry proceedings have to be held to be vitiated and not to be relied upon for passing any order of punishment. 16. Lastly, there is substantial force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents which were not mentioned in the charge memo cannot be relied upon for holding the charges to be proved. It is evident that in the present matter the petitioner was not made aware of the documents on which the respondent-Board intended to rely upon for proving the charges as no list of documents was supplied to the petitioner either with the charge memo or at any subsequent stage. In this regard, it makes no difference that the petitioner had perused certain documents. Thus the findings of the enquiry officer has to be held to be based on no evidence. The petitioner having been unaware of the documents, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra), all those documents have to be excluded from consideration and they cannot be relied upon or even referred to by the disciplinary authority.” 25 . Therefore, it is patently clear that both under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 as well as under the Regulations of 1964, it is mandatory that the memo of charge must accompany the list of documents as well as list of witnesses in support of the charges. It is also clear that the opportunity to the delinquent to cross-examine the witnesses is necessary to uphold the fairness and non-arbitrariness in the departmental proceedings. However, in the present case, neither the memo of charge contains the list of witness/documents nor the petitioners were given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness(s), who had deposed against them. Moreover, the call records which was relied heavily in the enquiry report is neither produced nor proved in the departmental proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that on the aforesaid grounds the disciplinary proceeding stands vitiated. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Prakash Singh, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891 has held once a departmental proceeding is found to be vitiated on procedural grounds and the Court sets aside an order of punishment then the correct course would be to remit back the matter for fresh consideration. 27. 27. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders of punishment contained in memo nos. 66 and 67 dated 16.01.2024 as well as the appellate orders dated 19.12.2024 and 08.01.2025 are quashed in both the cases. The matter is remanded back to the respondent-Board for fresh consideration of the matter from the stage of issuance of memo of charge. 28. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions are allowed to the above extent.