Departmental proceedings conducted without a Presenting Officer are legally unsustainable.

The petitioner, a constable in the District Police Force, Saran, was subjected to departmental proceedings on allegations that he had abused and misbehaved with a superior officer over the telephone and remained unauthorisedly absent for 1,056 days.

The disciplinary proceeding culminated in an enquiry report dated 26 March 2022 and the petitioner’s dismissal by Saran District Order No. 851 of 2022, contained in Memo No. 2101 dated 24 April 2022.

His appeal was rejected on 13 August 2022, and his memorial was subsequently rejected on 4 February 2023/6 February 2023.

Before the High Court, the petitioner principally contended that the departmental enquiry had been conducted without the appointment or effective participation of a Presenting Officer.

The State acknowledged, on examination of the record, that the proceeding had in fact been conducted in the absence of a Presenting Officer, although it defended the case on the merits of the allegations.

Whether the departmental proceeding and consequential dismissal of the petitioner were legally sustainable when the enquiry was conducted in the absence of a Presenting Officer.

Whether the disciplinary, appellate and memorial orders founded on such proceeding were liable to be quashed.

The Court applied the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, particularly Rule 17, which contemplates a procedurally valid disciplinary enquiry, including the prescribed charge materials and the distinct functions of a Presenting Officer.

The Court relied on Upendra Pandit v. The State of Bihar, 2023 (4) PLJR 568, which held that failure to comply with Rule 17, including conducting the proceeding without appointment of a Presenting Officer, constitutes a serious procedural lapse invalidating the punishment order.

It also relied on Md. Giaaul Hak v. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2024 (1) BLJ 94, which held that the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 apply to police personnel, notwithstanding the Bihar Police Manual, and that the Presenting Officer must perform the functions prescribed under Rule 17; where those functions are instead performed by the Enquiry Officer, the enquiry and consequential orders are unsustainable.

The Court found from the enquiry report, disciplinary order, appellate order and memorial order that the departmental proceeding had been conducted without a Presenting Officer.

Applying Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and the principles laid down in Upendra Pandit and Md. Giaaul Hak, the Court held that the absence of the Presenting Officer was not a mere technical irregularity but a fundamental procedural defect affecting the legality of the enquiry.

The State’s contention that the petitioner had admitted the misconduct and that the charges were substantively serious could not cure the legally defective procedure, because the validity of the punishment depended upon a disciplinary enquiry conducted in accordance with the applicable rules.

Consequently, the enquiry report and all orders based upon it could not be sustained.

The enquiry report dated 26 March 2022, the dismissal order contained in Memo No. 2101 dated 24 April 2022, the appellate order dated 13 August 2022, and the order rejecting the memorial dated 4/6 February 2023 were all set aside.

The Court accordingly quashed the departmental proceeding and its consequential orders on the ground that the enquiry had been conducted in the absence of a Presenting Officer.