Getting a Fair Hearing: Court Protects Police Officer's Rights in Dismissal Case

 

This case, heard in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, centered on the dismissal of a police constable, Md. Giaaul Hak, and whether that dismissal followed the correct legal procedures. The High Court examined the orders that led to his dismissal and considered arguments about which set of rules should govern such disciplinary actions within the Bihar police force. 

Background: The Dismissal

Md. Giaaul Hak was dismissed from his position as a constable in the Bihar police. This dismissal was based on a departmental proceeding – an internal disciplinary process within the police department. He challenged the orders that led to his dismissal, arguing that the disciplinary process was flawed and violated the rules that should have been followed.

Key Legal Question: Which Rules Apply?

A central issue in the case was determining whether the disciplinary action against the constable should have been conducted according to the Bihar Police Manual or the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (Bihar CCA Rules, 2005). This was crucial because these sets of rules have different procedures and safeguards for employees facing disciplinary action.

The Bihar Police Manual outlines how disciplinary actions should be taken against different ranks within the police force. It references older rules, specifically the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, and the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935, for certain categories of employees.

However, the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, were enacted later and specifically repealed the 1930 and 1935 rules. This meant that the older rules were replaced by the 2005 rules.

The Court's Decision on Applicable Rules

The High Court clarified that the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, are the relevant rules for disciplinary actions against police officials, whether gazetted (officer rank) or non-gazetted (other ranks). The court reasoned that the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, superseded the older rules mentioned in the Bihar Police Manual.

Procedural Fairness: The Role of the "Presenting Officer"

The court then examined whether the disciplinary proceeding against the constable followed the correct procedure according to the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. These rules outline the role of a "Presenting Officer," an individual appointed to present the case against the employee during the disciplinary inquiry.

The court found that while a Presenting Officer was appointed in the constable's case, this officer did not perform the duties assigned to them under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Instead, the Enquiry Officer, who is responsible for conducting the inquiry, also took on the role of the Presenting Officer. The High Court identified this as a violation of the proper procedure.

Evidence and Witness Examination

The High Court also noted that the documents presented as evidence in the disciplinary proceeding lacked proper signatures. Specifically, the examination records of witnesses did not contain the signatures of the witnesses or the Enquiry Officer, except in the case of the doctor's examination.

The Court's Decision and Its Implications

Considering these procedural flaws, the High Court ruled that the dismissal orders against the constable were not valid and quashed them. However, the court also gave the authorities the option to initiate a fresh disciplinary proceeding against the constable, starting from the stage of the charge memo (the initial document outlining the allegations). The court directed that this fresh proceeding, if pursued, should be completed within six months, and ordered that the constable be reinstated in the meantime.

This decision highlights the importance of due process in disciplinary proceedings, especially in cases involving the dismissal of an employee. It emphasizes that:

• Rules Must Be Followed: Disciplinary actions must adhere to the specific rules and procedures that govern the employment.
• Roles Must Be Distinct: The roles of those involved in the disciplinary process, such as the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer, must be kept separate to ensure fairness and impartiality.
• Evidence Must Be Proper: Evidence presented in disciplinary proceedings must be properly documented and authenticated.

In essence, the High Court's decision underscores the principle that even in internal disciplinary matters, the fundamental principles of fairness and adherence to legal procedure must be upheld.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMjU0NDUjMjAxOSMxI04=-t0AMla46NG4=