Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court has set aside the dismissal of a constable from service due to a serious procedural error in the departmental enquiry process. The constable was accused of consuming alcohol while on duty at Chero Outpost under Harnaut Police Station in Nalanda district on February 7, 2019. This incident led to the registration of a criminal case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and the initiation of departmental proceedings.
The enquiry officer found the charge of misconduct — consuming alcohol while on duty — to be proven, relying heavily on a positive breath analyzer test and statements from three witnesses. Based on the enquiry officer’s report, the disciplinary authority dismissed the constable from service on April 12, 2019. The appellate authority later upheld this decision, and the constable’s revision petition was rejected as non-maintainable.
The constable challenged the dismissal before the Patna High Court. His counsel argued that the breath analyzer test result could not conclusively establish alcohol consumption because he had taken homeopathic medicine. More importantly, it was argued that the enquiry process was flawed as the presenting officer appointed to prosecute the case on behalf of the department was absent during the enquiry. The enquiry officer allegedly took it upon himself to establish the charges, compromising the impartiality expected in such proceedings.
The State defended the dismissal, asserting that in disciplinary proceedings, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. Instead, a preponderance of probabilities suffices, and sufficient material was on record to support the charge.
The Court agreed that departmental proceedings differ from criminal trials in terms of evidentiary standards. However, it emphasized that enquiry officers must act as quasi-judicial authorities and maintain impartiality. The Court referred to key Supreme Court rulings, including Union of India v. Prakash Kumar Tandon and M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, which underline the importance of fair procedures and adherence to principles of natural justice.
The High Court concluded that the absence of a presenting officer, despite prior intimation, rendered the enquiry process unfair and vitiated the findings of misconduct. It observed that the enquiry officer effectively assumed the role of prosecutor, which is against established principles of natural justice.
Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal and related orders, and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage of presenting evidence. The constable is to be reinstated for this purpose, though the authority retains the power to suspend him during the enquiry. The issue of back wages is to be decided based on the outcome of the fresh proceedings.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment reiterates the fundamental requirement of fairness in disciplinary proceedings, especially for government employees. It clarifies that while the burden of proof in such matters may be lighter than in criminal cases, procedural safeguards, including the mandatory presence of a presenting officer, cannot be ignored.
For the government and law enforcement agencies, this ruling underscores the need to strictly follow due process in departmental actions. For the general public and government employees, it reinforces the protection available against arbitrary or procedurally flawed dismissals.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Was the departmental enquiry conducted fairly and in accordance with principles of natural justice?
- Court’s Decision: No. The absence of the presenting officer during the enquiry compromised its fairness, rendering the findings unsustainable.
- Was the punishment of dismissal from service justified based on the existing enquiry?
- Court’s Decision: No. The punishment was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh enquiry.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Union of India & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Tandon, AIR 2009 SC 1375
- M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 88
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (implied reference)
Case Title
Lalan Kumar Sharma v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17585 of 2019
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 185
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate — For the Petitioner
- Mr. Ajay Kumar, AC to GP-4 — For the Respondent State
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTc1ODUjMjAxOSMxI04=-JTmQq3bQ–am1–VM=
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.
