A disciplinary inquiry without an employee’s effective opportunity to participate cannot sustain dismissal.

The petitioner, a constable posted at Sarai Police Station, was taken into custody in connection with an FIR alleging illegal removal of liquor from the police-station malkhana.

A departmental proceeding commenced with service of a charge memo on 29 October 2023; the inquiry report, finding the charges proved, was submitted on 30 November 2023 while the petitioner remained in custody. He was released on bail on 10 January 2024.

The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, dismissed him from service on 18 December 2023. His appeal and memorial were rejected by the Inspector General of Police and the Director General of Police, respectively.

The petitioner challenged all three orders, principally alleging that his custody prevented him from effectively participating in the inquiry or cross-examining witnesses.

Whether the departmental inquiry and resulting dismissal could stand where the inquiry was completed in 33 days while the petitioner was in custody, leaving him without an effective opportunity to defend himself.

Whether the dismissal, appellate and memorial orders should be quashed and the proceeding remitted for a fresh inquiry in accordance with the applicable service rules.

The proceeding was governed by the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005; the petitioner specifically invoked Rules 17 and 18 in alleging that he had not received an opportunity for personal hearing or to cross-examine witnesses.

The Court’s decision rests on the procedural requirement that a departmental inquiry afford the employee a meaningful opportunity to defend himself and participate effectively; completing an inquiry while the employee is in custody, in circumstances leaving him no such opportunity, renders the proceeding procedurally unfair.

The parties cited Bhola Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Board of Directors, Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation v. K.C. Rahi, respectively, but the judgment does not apply either precedent as the basis of its holding.

The Court noted that the petitioner remained in custody throughout the inquiry, which began on 29 October 2023 and culminated in the inquiry report on 30 November 2023. On the facts, it concluded that he had no opportunity to defend himself or participate effectively in the inquiry.

Although the respondents maintained that he had received the relevant notices and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, the Court found the proceeding had been conducted in a hurried manner and held that the denial of an effective opportunity was sufficient to allow the writ petition, without needing to determine the petitioner’s other objections.

It remitted the matter to the stage of service of the charge memo, directed the petitioner to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, within three weeks, and required the Superintendent to proceed under the 2005 Rules and conclude the departmental proceeding in accordance with law within six months.

The writ application was disposed of on those terms.