Disciplinary authority must communicate tentative disagreement and afford hearing before overturning an exonerating enquiry report.

The petitioner, a Police Inspector in the Bihar Police, had earlier officiated as Sergeant Major at the Katihar Police Centre from 20 June 2016 to 30 September 2016.

A departmental controversy arose concerning the promotion of Constable Mithilesh Kumar Singh, against whom a departmental proceeding was pending. Although the petitioner had countersigned the district nomination list, the constable’s name was marked “not recommended,” and the nomination did not disclose the pending proceeding.

The Enquiry Authority, after examining four witnesses and the relevant documents, exonerated the petitioner by report dated 30 December 2021.

The Disciplinary Authority, without communicating tentative reasons for disagreeing with the exonerating report, held the petitioner partially guilty and imposed one censure through Memo No. 484 dated 6 April 2022.

Subsequently, the Director General of Police invoked the review power under Rule 853A of the Bihar Police Manual, issued a show-cause notice regarding enhancement of punishment, and ultimately imposed reversion from Police Inspector to Police Sub-Inspector for four years with cumulative effect through Memo No. 718 dated 24 November 2022.

Whether the Disciplinary Authority could lawfully disagree with the Enquiry Authority’s exonerating report and record a finding of partial guilt without recording and communicating tentative reasons of disagreement, furnishing the enquiry report, and granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing?

Whether the Director General of Police validly exercised the power of review under Rule 853A of the Bihar Police Manual while enhancing the punishment, despite issuing a show-cause notice without specific grounds and passing an order without independent reasons or proper consideration of the petitioner’s defence?

Whether the matter ought to be remitted for a fresh departmental exercise or whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration with consequential benefits?

Rule 18(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 requires the disciplinary authority, when disagreeing with an enquiry officer’s findings, to record reasons for disagreement and its own finding only where the evidence is sufficient.

Applying Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, State Bank of India v. K.P. Narayanan Kutty, J.A. Naiksatam, P.D. Agrawal, Lav Nigam and S.P. Malhotra, the Court held that tentative reasons for disagreement must be communicated to the delinquent and an opportunity of representation must be granted before an adverse finding is recorded.

The enquiry report must also be supplied in accordance with Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan and Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar.

Exercise of review or revisional power under Rule 853A is quasi-judicial and requires disclosure of the proposed grounds, consideration of the defence and a reasoned order, consistent with Oryx Fisheries v. Union of India, S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India and Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan.

Judicial review does not permit re-appreciation of evidence but permits interference where statutory procedure, natural justice or the requirement of findings based on some evidence is violated, as stated in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India.

The Court found that the Enquiry Authority had exonerated the petitioner on a reasoned assessment of the evidence, including the fact that the nomination list itself recorded the constable as “not recommended” and that the petitioner was on deputation when the relevant district order was issued.

The Disciplinary Authority nevertheless recorded partial guilt without formulating or communicating tentative reasons for disagreement, supplying the enquiry report or hearing the petitioner on the proposed adverse finding. This violated Rule 18(2) and the principles of natural justice.

The subsequent review order was also defective. The show-cause notice merely stated that the punishment was inadequate and disclosed no grounds for enhancement.

The Director General rejected the petitioner’s detailed representation by stating only that it contained no new fact, without addressing its contents or providing independent reasons for rejecting the exoneration and the original punishment.

The Court further held that the review order merely characterised the charge as grave and did not demonstrate why the findings of the Enquiry Authority or the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority were unsustainable.

Since the finding of guilt was invalid, the enhanced punishment and consequential order, which rested upon that finding, could not survive.

The Court declined remand because the enquiry had already culminated in exoneration, the alleged event was from 2016, the proceeding had itself commenced after substantial delay, and the petitioner was nearing superannuation.

Memo No. 718 dated 24 November 2022, enhancing the punishment under Rule 853A, was independently unsustainable because the show-cause notice lacked specific grounds and the final order was non-speaking and unsupported by independent reasons.

The consequential Memo No. 5190 dated 6 December 2022 was also quashed.

The writ petition was allowed.

The respondents were directed to restore the petitioner to the post of Police Inspector forthwith, with all consequential benefits in accordance with law, within eight weeks of receipt or production of the judgment.