The Patna High Court (Division Bench) dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by a State public sector undertaking, thereby affirming a Single Judge’s decision that had set aside an employee’s dismissal imposed after a domestic inquiry. The judgment reiterates a basic but often neglected rule of service jurisprudence: when rules require a Presenting Officer in a departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer cannot assume that role by default. Doing so vitiates the proceedings for violating the governing regulations and the principles of natural justice. The Bench also permitted the aggrieved employee to seek outstanding monetary benefits by representation, directing the Corporation to decide the same within a reasonable time.

In brief facts, the respondent-employee was removed from service by order dated 05.04.2003; the departmental appeal was rejected on 02.12.2003. The employee challenged these orders by writ petition, which the learned Single Judge allowed on 05.07.2019. The employer—through its Managing Director—then preferred the present LPA No. 1543 of 2019. The Division Bench, by oral judgment dated 10.12.2024, dismissed the appeal.

A notable aspect of the judgment is the Bench’s clarification regarding who truly acted as the disciplinary and appellate authorities. While the Single Judge’s order contained certain observations on that point, the Division Bench recorded the employer’s clarification: for an employee of the respondent’s cadre, the Executive Committee was the disciplinary authority that actually decided on dismissal, and the Managing Director only communicated that decision; similarly, the appellate decision was taken by the Board of Directors and communicated by the Managing Director. The Bench modified the Single Judge’s paragraph to reflect this, without disturbing the writ relief.

On the core legal defect, the Court recorded that though a Presenting Officer had been appointed, he did not participate before the Inquiry Officer. In consequence, the Inquiry Officer assumed a dual role—both adjudicator and virtual presenter of the employer’s case. The Bench unequivocally deprecated this approach, holding it to be a legal lacuna that violated the applicable regulations and the fairness standards of disciplinary law. Because the rules assign distinct roles to distinct functionaries, an Inquiry Officer cannot “sidestep” those rules and prosecute the case himself when the presenting function is absent.

The Division Bench relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, to restate the contour of judicial review in disciplinary matters: courts do not reappreciate evidence but will intervene where the inquiry suffers from violations of natural justice or the governing rules. In this case, the High Court found a clear breach because the Presenting Officer’s non-participation and the Inquiry Officer’s dual role undermined the prescribed procedure itself. Therefore, there was no ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s relief in favour of the employee. The LPA was, accordingly, dismissed.

Finally, addressing a submission on service dues, the Bench permitted the employee to move a detailed representation for monetary benefits and directed the Corporation to redress the grievance within three months of receiving such a representation. Pending interlocutory applications were disposed.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)

This decision has practical implications for government departments, statutory corporations, and public sector undertakings in Bihar:

• It reaffirms that adherence to service regulations is not a formality. If the rules require the appointment and active role of a Presenting Officer, the employer must ensure his participation. An Inquiry Officer cannot cure that absence by stepping into the role, as it compromises neutrality and fairness of the proceedings.
• Human resource and vigilance departments must audit their disciplinary processes. Missing links—such as non-participation of the Presenting Officer, irregular service of charge-sheet, or failure to supply relied-upon documents—can undo years of disciplinary action and expose the employer to reinstatement and back-wage claims.
• For employees, the case underscores that courts will not revisit factual findings lightly; but where there is a violation of natural justice or departure from rules, the High Court will intervene even at the appellate stage. The reliance on P. Gunasekaran ensures that the line between merits review and procedural fairness remains clear.
• The Court’s direction permitting a representation for monetary benefits and fixing a three-month timeline promotes administrative accountability and timely compliance after litigation ends.

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

• Whether a domestic inquiry remains valid where the Presenting Officer, though appointed, does not participate and the Inquiry Officer effectively assumes a presenting role.
  — Decision: No. The inquiry is vitiated because the Inquiry Officer cannot play a dual role. Regulations must be followed as written; deviation amounts to violation of natural justice. The Court deprecated this practice and treated it as a legal lacuna.
• Scope of judicial review over disciplinary findings in writ jurisdiction.
  — Decision: Limited, but available for violations of procedure and natural justice. Applying Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, the Bench held that where the inquiry process itself is flawed, the High Court can interfere; hence, the Single Judge’s intervention was correct.
• Identification of the competent disciplinary and appellate authorities for the cadre concerned and the effect of any misdescription by the Single Judge.
  — Decision: The Bench clarified and modified the Single Judge’s paragraph: the Executive Committee is the disciplinary authority; the Board of Directors is the appellate authority; the Managing Director communicated both decisions. This clarification did not alter the ultimate relief to the employee.
• Post-judgment administrative directions regarding service dues.
  — Decision: The employee may submit a representation seeking monetary benefits; the Corporation must decide the representation within three months of receipt.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 — cited to delineate the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and to emphasize that interference is warranted when there is violation of natural justice or rules.

Case Title

Managing Director, Bihar State Warehousing Corporation v. [Employee] Letters Patent Appeal against order in CWJC No. 2621 of 2004.

Case Number

LPA No. 1543 of 2019 (arising out of CWJC No. 2621 of 2004).

Citation(s)

2025 (1) PLJR 324

Coram and Names of Judges

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
• Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Pd. Singh

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the appellant (Corporation): Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Advocate.
• For the respondent (employee): Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate.

Link to Judgment

MyMxNTQzIzIwMTkjMSNO-eazqykXHQZU=

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.