Dismissal based on unverified electronic evidence and non-supply of foundational documents violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a Driver Hawaldar in the Bihar Military Police, was dismissed from service following a departmental proceeding

The initiation of the proceeding was based on a viral video clip dated 02.10.2018, which allegedly showed the petitioner extorting money from truck drivers

A preliminary inquiry was conducted, and subsequently, a memo of charge was served on 16.11.2018

During the inquiry, eleven witnesses identified the petitioner in the video but did not personally witness the act of extortion

The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner on 18.09.2019

his appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 21.03.2020

The petitioner challenged these orders on the grounds of violation of natural justice and procedural lapses

Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005, which mandates providing the substance of imputations of misconduct to the delinquent

principles from Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, establishing that certification under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act is a mandatory precondition for the admissibility of electronic records

Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police regarding judicial review of perverse findings

State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, which established that a delinquent must be provided with all materials relied upon by the prosecution to ensure a fair opportunity to defend

The Court observed that the entire case rested on a viral video clip that was neither provided to the petitioner nor scientifically verified for authenticity

Applying the rule from Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, the Court found the electronic evidence inadmissible as the mandatory certification was missing and the maker of the video was not examined

the Court analyzed the witness testimonies and found that while witnesses identified the petitioner in the video, none testified to actually seeing him extort money

Consequently, the Court determined there was a missing link between the charge and the finding of guilt, classifying the case as one of "no evidence"

The Court held that withholding the foundational material (the video) was an arbitrary exercise of power that caused serious prejudice to the petitioner

The Court quashed the dismissal order dated 18.09.2019 and the appellate order dated 21.03.2020

The high court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, including salary and continuity of service, to be granted within eight weeks