Before Serving Harshest Punishment Disciplinary Authority Must Consider Delinquent Officer's Explanation: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has quashed the dismissal of a Bihar government officer accused of accepting a bribe, holding that the disciplinary proceedings leading to his termination were vitiated by serious procedural irregularities and a complete disregard for the principles of natural justice.

The Court observed that while a corruption charge found by the disciplinary authority based upon the enquiry report cannot be interfered with much less on a misplaced sympathy; however any action by the State in this direction should be lawful. 

Referring to various precedents on the subject, Justice Harish Kumar, in his order said,

"Now coming to the impugned order, inflicting punishment of dismissal, there is no deliberation or discussion to the second show cause reply submitted by the petitioner, which makes the entire procedure of asking the second show cause reply upon the enquiry report from the delinquent redundant. The opportunity offered to the delinquent against the inconsistencies committed by the Enquiry Officer in course of enquiry and failure on the part of the Enquiry Officer and/or Presenting Officer in following the procedures are required to be looked into by the disciplinary authority and for the said purpose this procedure of giving second show cause notice is incorporated in the rules. A disciplinary authority before inflicting harshest punishment is obliged to consider the explanation of the petitioner"

The court further emphasized that the final order must display complete application of mind to the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice, the defence taken in reply, followed by at least a brief analysis of the defence supported by reasons why it was not acceptable.

"To hold that the cause shown can be cursorily rejected in one line by saying that it was not satisfactory or acceptable held to be vesting of arbitrary and uncanalised powers in the authority... Bare perusal of the order afore noted, this Court has no hesitation to hold it cryptic and non speaking," the court added. 

Background

The petitioner Satyendra Narayan Singh was appointed as Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit, with additional charge as District Programme Officer.

Singh was placed under suspension in July 2016 following a vigilance trap, in which he was alleged to have been caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of ₹50,000 from one Bir Bahadur Singh. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him and culminated in his dismissal from service.

Singh approached the High Court challenging the dismissal, alleging that the enquiry was flawed from the outset. It was contended that he was not paid any subsistence allowance during his suspension period, contrary to established service protections, and that the charge memo failed to comply with Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 as it did not include a list of documents or witnesses by which the charges were proposed to be proved.

It was further submitted that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the proceedings in a mechanical and biased manner, without examining any witnesses or allowing the petitioner to cross-examine key individuals. The findings of guilt, the petitioner claimed, were entirely based on the vigilance trap memo, which was never proved in accordance with law. His second show cause reply, filed in response to the Enquiry Officer's report, was also disregarded without any discussion or reasoning.

The State defended the dismissal, arguing that the petitioner had been caught red-handed and that procedural deviations, if any, were minor and did not cause prejudice. It was further stated that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to attend multiple hearings.

Rejecting the State's defence the court said that the charge memo simply referred to the vigilance enquiry report with no oral witnesses named therein.

It observed, “In the case in hand, the trap memo was the basic evidence, whereupon reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer but none of member of the raiding party either pre and post trap was examined to prove the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe.”

It further observed that during the entire enquiry, nothing has been brought on record as to what role has been played by the Presenting Officer and in fact the enquiry report does not even talk about the Presenting Officer.

The court said that Rule 17(14) of the Rules, 2005 casts a specific duty upon the Enquiry Officer that on the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority.

The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined and the Enquiry Officer may, after completion of the production of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer or permit them to file written brief of their respective cases, if they so desire.

"However, there is no such report on the part of the Enquiry Officer," the court said. 

It further said that there was discussion to the second show-cause notice reply submitted by the petitioner, which makes the entire procedure of asking the second show cause reply upon the enquiry report from the delinquent redundant.

Setting aside the dismissal order, the Court allowed the writ petition, while granting liberty to the State to take appropriate action if the pending criminal case against the petitioner results in conviction. 

The plea was allowed. 

Case Title: Satyendra Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number: CWJC No. 15706 of 2021

Click here to read the judgment