Patna High Court Upholds Reinstatement of Dismissed Government Employee Due to Lack of Evidence

Patna High Court Upholds Reinstatement of Dismissed Government Employee Due to Lack of Evidence

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In this case, the Patna High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Bihar, thereby upholding the earlier decision of a learned Single Judge who had quashed the dismissal of a government employee. The main issue revolved around a disciplinary proceeding against a Block Statistical Supervisor accused of accepting a bribe. However, the High Court found that the departmental enquiry against him was fatally flawed due to lack of evidence.

The background of the case began with a complaint in November 2014, where it was alleged that the employee demanded ₹5,000 as bribe for processing a land mutation application. A trap was laid by the Vigilance Bureau, and the employee was allegedly caught with ₹4,000. Following this, both a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and a departmental enquiry were initiated.

Despite this, the Presenting Officer in the departmental proceedings submitted a report in February 2016 stating that no charges were proven. Ignoring this report, the Enquiry Officer declared that the charges were proven. The disciplinary authority acted on the Enquiry Officer’s report and dismissed the employee from service in September 2017. The employee’s appeal against this decision was also rejected in March 2021.

Challenging these orders, the aggrieved employee approached the High Court. The learned Single Judge held that the enquiry suffered from procedural and evidentiary defects. Key witnesses, including the complainant and police officers involved in the trap, were not examined. The only piece of evidence presented was a Vigilance Bureau letter, which was deemed insufficient. Hence, the court reinstated the employee with full financial benefits.

The State of Bihar appealed this decision, arguing that even if there were procedural errors, the case should have been remanded for a fresh enquiry rather than complete reinstatement.

However, the Division Bench disagreed. It observed that this was not a case of mere technical defect but a complete lack of evidence. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized that when an enquiry is conducted in a negligent manner without due evidence, it cannot be remanded to give the employer a second chance. The Bench upheld that the learned Single Judge was correct in granting full relief.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the importance of due process in departmental enquiries, especially those with serious implications like dismissal from service. Government departments must ensure that disciplinary proceedings are not conducted in a perfunctory manner. The ruling ensures protection of employees from arbitrary action and underscores that lack of evidence cannot be overlooked in administrative proceedings. It also clarifies that remand is not an option where enquiry lacks fundamental procedural integrity.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

  • Whether the departmental enquiry against the employee was valid: No, due to lack of evidence and non-examination of key witnesses.
  • Whether the punishment order could be sustained: No, both the dismissal and appellate orders were quashed.
  • Whether the case should be remanded for a fresh enquiry: No, the court held this was not a case of mere technical defect but one of complete failure to prove charges.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

  • Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570
  • Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588
  • ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727
  • Union of India & Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610
  • State of Bihar & Ors. v. Vikas Kumar, LPA No. 446 of 2024 (Patna High Court)

Case Title

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Anil Kumar Sinha

Case Number

LPA No. 770 of 2024

Citation(s)- 2025 (1) PLJR 138

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble the Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

  • Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-4 (For the Appellants – State of Bihar)
  • Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar, AC to AAG-4 (For the Appellants)
  • Mr. Akhilesh Dutta Verma, Advocate (For the Respondent – Employee)

Link to Judgment

MyM3NzAjMjAyNCMxI04=-ia451FHthdU=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.

Samridhi Priya

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent News