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.”

Court’s Decision:
The Patna High Court set aside the order of dismissal against the petitioner and allowed the writ petition. The court observed that the departmental inquiry conducted was not in accordance with the rules of natural justice, and key procedures under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 2005 were not followed. The court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must be handled with seriousness and procedural rigor to ensure fair outcomes and to uphold the integrity of public service.

Facts:
The petitioner, a government servant, was appointed as Headmaster in a government school and subsequently promoted to several positions, including Block Education Extension Officer. A complaint was lodged against him on June 26, 2007, alleging that he demanded illegal gratification for allocating a school to a complainant. The petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance Department, leading to his suspension. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 2005, and he was ultimately dismissed from service in December 2016. The petitioner filed an appeal against the dismissal, which was rejected, prompting him to approach the High Court.

Issues:

1. Whether the departmental inquiry against the petitioner adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural rules.
2. Whether the dismissal order was valid, given the lack of examination of key witnesses and failure to provide requested documents.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the departmental inquiry was conducted without following due procedure. He emphasized that critical documents requested were not supplied, and key witnesses, including the complainant, were not examined. The petitioner further contended that the charges were not substantiated with any direct or indirect evidence and relied heavily on unproven documents.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The State contended that the petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe and thus, a departmental inquiry was initiated following his suspension. The respondent maintained that the inquiry was conducted fairly, and the charges were substantiated by the evidence on record. The suspension was revoked in 2009, but due to the serious nature of the allegations, the petitioner was again suspended in 2014, followed by his eventual dismissal in 2016.

Analysis of the Law:
The court referred to the principles established in the Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. and State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha cases, where it was held that departmental inquiries must adhere to the rules of natural justice, and mere production of documents without examination of witnesses is insufficient to establish charges. The inquiry must be fair and unbiased, ensuring that the accused is given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves.

Precedent Analysis:
The court relied on the judgment in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., wherein it was held that an inquiry officer’s role is quasi-judicial, and charges must be proven through substantive evidence, rather than relying solely on documentary proof or unsubstantiated complaints. The court also referred to State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, which emphasizes the importance of fairness and procedural correctness in departmental proceedings.

Court’s Reasoning:
The court observed that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted with a lack of procedural adherence. Neither the complainant nor the vigilance officers were examined during the inquiry, and the necessary documents requested by the petitioner were not supplied, which violated the principles of natural justice. The inquiry officer’s findings were based solely on documents without proper examination of witnesses, rendering the entire process unfair.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the dismissal order, noting that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to present his case. The appeal was rejected without considering his explanations. The court directed the government to ensure that officers conducting such inquiries are properly trained in the rules and procedures.

Implications:
The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural norms in departmental inquiries to prevent miscarriage of justice. It also mandates that the Chief Secretary of Bihar take steps to train officers on the “Disciplinary Rules and Procedures” to avoid similar lapses in the future, thus ensuring that disciplinary authorities are well-versed in the rules governing such inquiries.

Also Read – Madras High Court Grants Interim Injunction Restraining 8th Respondent from Alienating Property Due to Alleged Fraudulent Agreement: “If It Is Established That 8th Respondent Played a Role in Defrauding the Petitioner, the Sale Will Be Vitiated”