Supreme Court holds dismissal unsafe for procedural lapses, directs ₹30 lakh compensation and costs

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard a civil appeal arising out of an SLP against a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court that had restored a departmental dismissal of a CID constable; the appeal raised whether departmental proceedings were vitiated by procedural infirmities, whether acquittal in criminal proceedings undermined the disciplinary finding, and whether the writ court had erred in re-appreciating evidence.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the Division Bench order and the disciplinary orders of 21 June 1996, 14 July 1997 and 6 August 2003, and directed monetary relief instead of reinstatement. The Court found that the departmental file was not produced despite a specific request, invoked an adverse inference and held that "due process was not followed in dismissing the appellant from service, rendering the dismissal unjustified." The Court awarded a lump sum of ₹30 lakh inclusive of all service and retiral benefits to be paid within three months and costs of ₹5 lakh. The Court emphasised procedural standards and the duty to produce relevant records and evidence; as the Court observed, "Under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a party fails to produce evidence that is within its control, it is presumed that the withheld evidence would be unfavourable to it." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Upon reviewing the materials at our disposal and considering the aforementioned anomalies in the issuance of the chargesheet and the procedural lapses, none of which can be attributed to the appellant, and in light of the absence of the departmental file pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings, we are compelled to conclude beyond any cavil of doubt that due process was not followed in dismissing the appellant from service, rendering the dismissal unjustified."

Background The appellant was appointed as a Constable in the CID Dog Squad in 1973. A written complaint dated 7–8 August 1988 led to his arrest on 8 August 1988 and suspension. A memorandum of charges was served in 1989 listing four charges, including alleged receipt of ₹40,000 and earlier misconduct from 1976. An inquiry officer submitted a report in 1995 finding guilt; the Superintendent of Police dismissed the appellant on 21 June 1996. Criminally, the appellant was convicted by the trial court in April 1994 under Sections 384 and 411 IPC but was acquitted on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge on 16 February 1996. Administrative appeals and revision petitions were dismissed, and the appellant filed a writ petition. A Single Judge of the Patna High Court quashed the dismissal on 16 July 2013, finding charges vague, reliance on a witness (PW‑1) who was not cross‑examined, and overlap between criminal and departmental evidence; the Single Judge relied on precedents such as Sawai Singh and G.M. Tank. A Division Bench reversed on 16 November 2016, holding that the Single Judge impermissibly re‑appreciated evidence and that procedural requirements were observed.

Before this Court, the appellant contended that the charges were defective under Rule 55 of the Rules of 1930 as applied, that PW‑1 was not permitted meaningful cross‑examination, that the informant was not produced, and that the departmental file was withheld. The State defended the inquiry and said the appellant waived cross‑examination. The Supreme Court directed production of the departmental file; the file was not produced. Applying Section 114(g) and established authorities on disciplinary procedure, the Court held that the failure to produce the file, the vagueness of charges, denial of effective cross‑examination of an interested witness, and the substantial similarity between charge‑1 and criminal allegations rendered the dismissal unsustainable. The Court did not order reinstatement because of the appellant's advanced age and long delay; it awarded compensation of ₹30 lakh and costs of ₹5 lakh, to be paid within three months, and otherwise disposed of the appeal.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5497 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9818/2017) Case Title: Maharana Pratap Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Senior Counsel for the Appellant (name not specified in the record) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Khan, Advocate (appearing for the respondents)