A departmental enquiry is vitiated when relied-upon documents remain unproved without a Presenting Officer.

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police posted in East Champaran, was accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification for release of a motorcycle seized during vehicle checking.

Pursuant to a complaint by Manoj Jha, a vigilance trap was conducted on 5 January 2010, during which the petitioner was allegedly apprehended with ₹4,500; Vigilance P.S. Case No. 1 of 2010 was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

He was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated through charge memo dated 16 March 2010, issued by the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran.

The petitioner alleged that the list of documents and witnesses was not supplied with the charge memo, no Presenting Officer was appointed, defence witnesses were not examined, and relied-upon documents were not proved during the enquiry.

The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved. Following show-cause notices and a recommendation by the Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Inspector General dismissed the petitioner from service on 24 November 2011. The appeal and memorial were subsequently rejected.

The petitioner had superannuated in 2015 while the criminal vigilance case remained pending.

1. Whether the charge memo issued by the Superintendent of Police, rather than the Deputy Inspector General, was invalid for want of competence and jurisdiction.

2. Whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated by non-compliance with the applicable disciplinary procedure, including failure to appoint a Presenting Officer and failure to prove the documents relied upon by the department.

3. Whether the issuance of show-cause notices proposing dismissal reflected a predetermined mind and violated the principles of natural justice.

4. Whether, after the petitioner’s superannuation, the matter should be remitted for a fresh enquiry and whether reinstatement or consequential monetary and retiral benefits could be directed at that stage.

The Court applied Rules 824(A) and 825, read with Appendix 84 of the Bihar Police Manual, holding that the Superintendent of Police was competent to issue the charge memo against a Sub-Inspector, although the Deputy Inspector General was competent to impose the punishment of dismissal.

The Court further applied the procedural safeguards under Rules 17 and 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, including the requirement that the disciplinary process be fairly conducted and that a Presenting Officer lead the departmental case.

It relied on Ras Bihari Paswan v. State of Bihar, 2023 (2) PLJR 762, Narangi Baitha v. State of Bihar, 2018 (3) PLJR 910, Dhananjay Jha v. State of Bihar, 2021 (3) PLJR 463, Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2019 (2) PLJR 447, and H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Mahesh Dahiya, 2017 (1) PLJR 277 (SC), for the principles governing competent initiation, fair enquiry, appointment of a Presenting Officer, and consideration of the delinquent’s response before deciding punishment.

Relying on Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd., 2026 (3) PLJR 125 (SC), the Court held that disputed departmental documents must ordinarily be proved through evidence and made available for cross-examination.

It also relied on Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL, 2026 INSC 639, regarding the treatment of serious corruption charges and the consequences of superannuation during litigation.

The Court rejected the challenge to the charge memo, holding that, under Rule 825 read with Appendix 84 of the Bihar Police Manual, the Superintendent of Police was competent to issue it.

However, the enquiry itself was found legally defective because no Presenting Officer was appointed, the departmental documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer were not proved through witnesses, and the petitioner was consequently denied a meaningful opportunity to contest the evidence.

The Court also considered the show-cause notices and the Superintendent’s recommendation proposing dismissal as indicative of a predetermined approach, contrary to the requirement that the disciplinary authority genuinely consider the delinquent’s representation before determining punishment.

These procedural violations were treated as violations of the applicable rules and natural justice, warranting annulment of the disciplinary, appellate and memorial orders.

Although the allegation involved corruption and the criminal case was pending, the Court treated the seriousness of the charge as a reason to permit a fresh departmental proceeding rather than terminate the matter outright.

Since the petitioner had already superannuated, reinstatement could not be ordered; monetary and retiral consequences were left dependent on the result of the fresh proceeding.

The dismissal order dated 24 November 2011, the appellate order, and the memorial order were quashed for violation of the prescribed disciplinary procedure and principles of natural justice.

The challenge to the charge memo dated 16 March 2010 was rejected, as the Superintendent of Police was held competent to issue it.

The matter was remitted to the competent disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the defective stage and conclude the proceeding preferably within six months.

No reinstatement was directed because the petitioner had already attained superannuation; his monetary and retiral benefits were to abide by the fresh decision and applicable regulations.

Pending applications were also disposed of.