Dismissal based on an ex parte inquiry without proved evidence and supplied inquiry report violates natural justice.

The petitioners, both Medical Officers in the Bihar Health Department, were proceeded against for alleged unauthorised absence from duty.

In CWJC No. 17875 of 2017, Thakur Ashok Kumar Prasad was appointed in 1981 and was posted at Referral Hospital, Kataiya, Gopalganj. He was suspended on 6 December 2004 and a departmental proceeding was initiated under Rule 55 of the applicable CCA Rules. An ex parte inquiry found the charge proved, and he was dismissed under Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code by order dated 9 February 2017, despite the Bihar Public Service Commission having declined concurrence to the proposed dismissal.

In CWJC No. 3045 of 2017, Md. (Dr.) Ishrat Hussain, appointed in 1988, was suspended on 6 December 2004 for alleged unauthorised absence and failure to participate in flood-relief duties. A departmental proceeding was initiated, an ex parte inquiry report was submitted, and the petitioner’s explanations referring to serious cardiac illness and leave applications were rejected. He was dismissed under Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code by order dated 31 October 2016.

The petitioners contended that the charge memos and notices were not properly served, no departmental witnesses were examined, the documentary material was not proved, the inquiry reports were not supplied before imposition of punishment, and their medical and other defences were not considered. The State maintained that prolonged unauthorised absence had been established and that adequate opportunities had been provided through communications and newspaper publications.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings and ex parte inquiries were vitiated by breach of the statutory procedure under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, including failure to serve notice, examine witnesses, prove documents, and provide a reasonable opportunity of defence?

Whether reliance on administrative correspondence, without examination of witnesses to prove its contents, could legally establish the charge of unauthorised and wilful absence?

Whether non-supply of the inquiry reports before imposition of the penalty of dismissal violated the principles of natural justice and caused prejudice to the petitioners?

Whether dismissal under Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code was sustainable when continuous, wilful absence for the requisite period had not been lawfully established?

The Court applied Rules 17(14) and 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, requiring the disciplinary authority to produce oral and documentary evidence through witnesses, permit cross-examination, and objectively consider the employee’s representation before imposing punishment.

It relied on Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, for the rule that non-supply of the inquiry report violates the reasonable opportunity guaranteed by Article 311(2), subject to the prejudice test.

Under State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, an inquiry officer is an independent quasi-judicial authority and cannot find charges proved merely because the employee remains absent; the department must produce and prove its evidence.

Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, was applied for the principle that documents do not prove themselves and that findings must rest on legally established evidence rather than suspicion or unproved records.

The Court also referred to Union of India v. J. Ahmed, (1979) 2 SCC 286, for the proposition that an administrative lapse or absence cannot automatically constitute misconduct without proof of blameworthy or wilful conduct.

Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code was treated as requiring a legally established basis for dismissal, including proof of the relevant continuous and wilful absence.

The Court held that the proceedings were fundamentally defective because the notices had returned unserved with postal endorsements indicating that the petitioners resided in Siwan, yet the authorities proceeded ex parte without ensuring valid personal or substituted service.

The departmental case substantially relied on administrative letters, particularly the Civil Surgeon’s letter alleging absence, but no author or other witness was examined to prove the contents or the underlying facts. Consequently, the charge rested on unproved documentary material and amounted to a “no evidence” finding under the principles in Saroj Kumar Sinha and Roop Singh Negi.

The inquiry reports were also not supplied before the proposed dismissal, depriving the petitioners of an opportunity to challenge the findings; the Court found actual and substantial prejudice, satisfying the Karunakar prejudice test.

Further, the disciplinary authority failed to provide a reasoned evaluation of the petitioners’ objections, including non-service of notice, medical illness, joining representations, and the absence of proof of wilful misconduct.

In CWJC No. 17875 of 2017, the authority also proceeded despite the BPSC’s refusal to concur with the proposed dismissal.

It directed the respondents to reinstate both petitioners to their respective posts of Medical Officer.

The treatment of the intervening period, consequential monetary benefits, and back wages were left to be determined by the competent authority through reasoned orders in accordance with law.

The respondents were directed to comply within three months.

The State was granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings from the stage of serving a proper charge memo, strictly in accordance with Rules 17 and 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, and after providing full opportunity of hearing.

There was no order as to costs.