Disciplinary action warrants judicial interference only for procedural illegality, natural-justice breach, or shocking disproportionality.

The petitioner, a constable, was placed under suspension after an incident in November 2015 involving his failure to report for duty and the alleged loss of his service revolver. A departmental proceeding followed, and he was dismissed from service by order dated 3 June 2020. His appeal and memorial were rejected.

He challenged those decisions, alleging procedural irregularities, denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, non-supply of the enquiry report, and failure to consider his defence and the non-payment of subsistence allowance.

The Court noted that the charge memo did not specifically charge him with losing the revolver, and that the enquiry instead concerned indiscipline, disobedience, negligence and incompetence.

1. Whether the departmental proceeding was vitiated by procedural illegality or breach of natural justice, including denial of cross-examination or failure to appoint or properly use a Presenting Officer.

2. Whether the disciplinary, appellate and memorial orders warranted interference because the petitioner’s defence was not considered or the punishment was disproportionate.

The Court applied Rule 17(5) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which the petitioner invoked as requiring due consideration of his defence.

It also applied the principle that judicial review of departmental proceedings is limited: a court does not re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court and may interfere where there is procedural illegality or material irregularity, breach of natural justice, or a punishment that is shockingly disproportionate or exorbitant.

The Court found that the petitioner had not raised an objection about denial of cross-examination before the Enquiry Officer or at a later stage.

It also found that a Presenting Officer had been expressly appointed; given the petitioner’s non-contestation of the proceeding, the limited role attributed to that officer did not establish a procedural defect.

Although the revolver’s alleged loss was not specifically charged, the charges actually framed concerned indiscipline and related misconduct and were found proved on oral and documentary evidence.

Applying the restricted scope of judicial review, the Court found no demonstrated procedural illegality, natural-justice violation or disproportionate punishment warranting intervention.

Any interlocutory application was also disposed of.