Patna High Court Quashes Dismissal of Sub-Registrar Accused of Accepting Bribe, Observes: “Order of Dismissal Based on No Evidence or Irrelevant Consideration”

Court’s Decision:

The Patna High Court quashed the dismissal order of a Sub-Registrar, who was removed from service on allegations of accepting a bribe, observing that the findings were based on “no evidence or irrelevant consideration of evidence.” The Court ordered his reinstatement with all consequential benefits from the date of his suspension.

Facts:

The petitioner was serving as a Sub-Registrar at the Sub-Registry Office, Hilsa, Nalanda district. He was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 10,000 for the registration of a piece of land based on a complaint filed by a third party. The Vigilance Investigation Bureau conducted a trap, leading to his arrest, and registered a case under Section 7/8/13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated, and he was dismissed from service. An appeal against the dismissal was also dismissed.

Issues:

1. Whether the departmental proceedings against the petitioner were vitiated due to lack of evidence.
2. Whether the order of dismissal could be sustained when it was not passed by the competent authority.
3. Whether the dismissal was justified when the bribe amount was not directly recovered from the petitioner.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner contended that:

• The entire proceeding was based on “no evidence.”
• The order of dismissal was passed by an authority not competent to dismiss him.
• The alleged bribe amount was not recovered from his possession, and the evidence adduced did not establish that he demanded any illegal gratification.
• During the departmental enquiry, the complainant admitted that the bribe was paid to third parties, not to the petitioner.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents maintained that:

• The departmental proceedings were conducted fairly.
• The petitioner was found guilty of misconduct based on evidence provided during the enquiry, including the recovery of Rs. 8,000 from an Almirah in the Sub-Registrar’s office.
• The dismissal was approved by the Council of Ministers and communicated by the Joint Secretary, thus complying with legal requirements.

Analysis of the Law:

The Court examined Article 311(1) of the Constitution and Rule 15 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which mandate that a government servant can only be dismissed by the appointing authority. The Court noted that while the dismissal was communicated by the Joint Secretary, it was approved by the Governor and the Council of Ministers, thereby not violating procedural requirements.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court referred to:

1. B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. (2014) – where it was held that the demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. United Bank of India v. Bishwanath Bhattacharjee (2022) – emphasized that findings not based on evidence or considering irrelevant factors are liable to be quashed.
3. Union of India v. H.C. Goel (1964) – highlighted that the Court must ascertain whether there is any evidence to support the charge.
4. Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) – reiterated that findings must be based on relevant evidence and the principles of natural justice.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the complainant’s testimony did not support the allegations against the petitioner. The evidence showed that the alleged bribe amount was paid to intermediaries, not the petitioner. Moreover, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau’s trap did not conclusively prove the petitioner’s involvement in demanding or accepting bribes. The evidence on record failed to establish a direct link between the petitioner and the illegal gratification.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that the dismissal was based on no evidence or irrelevant considerations. The Inquiry Officer’s findings were vitiated by a lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged misconduct.

Implications:

The judgment reinforces that disciplinary proceedings must be based on clear and direct evidence. Findings based on conjecture, hearsay, or irrelevant considerations cannot sustain a dismissal order. The ruling sets a precedent emphasizing the requirement for competent evidence in departmental enquiries, especially when the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature.

Also Read – Patna High Court Sets Aside Dismissal Order for Lack of Procedural Fairness in Departmental Inquiry: “Departmental Inquiries Cannot Be Treated Casually, Mandates Strict Adherence to Rules.”