Disciplinary action initiated with a pre-determined mindset and founded on evidence-free enquiry findings is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner, an Unarmed Branch Constable in the Assam Police, was dismissed from service following a departmental enquiry into allegations of misconduct.

Specifically, he was accused of negotiating a deal to allow vehicles carrying illegal "Burmese betelnut" to pass through Bilaipur Police Station on 07.02.2023.

The petitioner was also charged with leaving his place of posting at Bandukmara O.P. without permission.

Following an enquiry report dated 31.07.2023, which found him guilty, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him on 31.08.2023.

The appellate authority upheld this dismissal on 03.01.2024.

The petitioner challenged these orders, alleging procedural irregularities and lack of evidence.

1. Whether the show cause notice was issued with a pre-determined mindset, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the enquiry officer acted as a prosecutor, vitiating the impartiality of the departmental proceedings.

3. Whether the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse and unsupported by the evidence on record.

4. Whether the non-supply of the enquiry report prior to the dismissal order caused material prejudice to the petitioner.

The Court relied on the principle that a show cause notice must manifest an open mind; if it exhibits a "mindset" or "pre-judged opinion," it violates fair procedure, as established in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girija Shankar Pant and Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.

The Court applied the rule from Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, which holds that an Enquiry Officer playing the role of a prosecutor by leading evidence or cross-examining witnesses violates natural justice.

Furthermore, the non-supply of an enquiry report is a violation of the "reasonable opportunity" clause under Article 311 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice if it causes prejudice to the delinquent.

The Court found the first show cause notice defective as it asked why "penalties... should not be inflicted," indicating a pre-determined guilt rather than an open enquiry.

It observed that the Enquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor by calling unlisted witnesses and examining the petitioner as a prosecution witness (PW 10).

On merits, the Court noted that the evidence of PW 11 (who granted verbal permission for leave) and PW 4 explicitly contradicted the charges, yet the Enquiry Officer arrived at a "perverse" conclusion of guilt based on "might be involved".

Furthermore, the second show cause notice was issued after the Disciplinary Authority had already concluded the petitioner was "hereby dismissed," rendering the petitioner’s reply a mere "empty ceremony".

The Court held that the non-supply of the enquiry report deprived the petitioner of the ability to point out these evidentiary contradictions.

The Court quashed the enquiry report, the dismissal order dated 31.08.2023, and the appellate order dated 03.01.2024; directed reinstatement with continuity of service and arrears of salary subject to an affidavit of non-employment; and granted no liberty for fresh proceedings.