Departmental Enquiry Relying Solely On Vitiated Trial Proceedings Unlawful: Patna HC

Striking a decisive blow against procedural irregularities in administrative disciplinary actions, the High Court held that conducting a 'fresh enquiry' by merely adopting older witness depositions without fresh cross-examination violates natural justice and invalidates service dismissal orders.

In a writ petition challenging a departmental dismissal order sustained over a decade, a single bench of Justice Kumar Manish quashed the disciplinary and appellate orders after discovering that the fresh enquiry ordered by the department was rendered a mere formality.

Court Observations and Directions

The High Court observed that when a fresh enquiry is ordered due to procedural defects, the Enquiry Officer must independently record evidence rather than merely appropriating older depositions. The procedure adopted by the authority deprived the petitioner of an effective and meaningful opportunity to test the departmental evidence through cross-examination, defeating the principles of natural justice.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...where the facts and evidence relied upon in the departmental proceeding and in the criminal case are one and the same, without any material difference between the two, the distinction ordinarily drawn between departmental and criminal proceedings, founded on differing approaches and differing standards or burden of proof, ceases to have application..."

The Court has the following directions:

"(i) The order dated 09.08.2007 bearing Memo No. 888 (Annexure-8), passed by the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari; the order dated 11.03.2008, bearing Memo No. 202 (Annexure-10), passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Champaran Range, Bettiah; and the order dated 15.03.2017, bearing Memo No. 3478 (Annexure-12), passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, are hereby quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. The question as to the manner in which the intervening period is to be treated and the consequential monetary benefits, if any, shall be determined by the competent authority in accordance with law by passing of a reasoned order.

(iii) The question of payment of back wages, and the quantum thereof, is left open to be determined by the respondents."

Background

The petitioner, a Constable with the Bihar Police, was deputed at Mehsi Circle Guard, East Champaran. On the night of March 22/23, 1998, an incident occurred at Somlata Theatre where a fellow constable opened fire to control an unruly mob, leading to two deaths and injuries. Consequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 302, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, which was later supervised under Sections 304(A), 308, 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Parallel departmental proceedings were drawn up under Departmental Enquiry No. 04 of 1999, resulting in the petitioner's dismissal in 2004. Upon appeal, the Director General of Police set aside the dismissal in 2006 and explicitly directed a fresh enquiry because witness statements had not been supplied to the petitioner. However, the newly appointed Enquiry Officer submitted a report without examining any witness afresh, relying entirely on previous depositions. Based on this, a second dismissal order was passed on August 9, 2007, which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate authorities.

Meanwhile, in the parallel criminal prosecution (Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1999), the petitioner was honourably acquitted on merits by the Additional Sessions Judge-13, East Champaran, Motihari, on August 9, 2016. The petitioner brought this acquittal to the notice of the department, but his representation and appeal memorial were rejected.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the Patna High Court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Anr. ( "(2006) 5 SCC 446": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 507) and Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., the Court evaluated Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and held that sustaining a departmental penalty on identical facts after a criminal acquittal on merits, alongside committing a fatal breach of natural justice in the enquiry process, renders the dismissal orders illegal. The High Court accordingly allowed the writ petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11480 of 2017
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, Adv., Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Binod Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Md. Nashrul Hoda Khan- SC-1, Md. Fazle Karim, AC to SC

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PAT) 2665