Dismissal for impersonation upheld on the basis of the employee’s written admission of guilt.

The petitioner was appointed as a constable in West Champaran after succeeding in the selection process under Advertisement No. 1/2014.

Following an allegation that another person had appeared for him in the written examination, an FIR was registered and departmental proceedings were initiated; he was ultimately dismissed, and his appeal was rejected.

He challenged those orders, alleging procedural defects, including denial of an opportunity to participate in the inquiry and failure to supply the inquiry report.

The disciplinary and appellate authorities relied principally on a written admission attributed to him that another person had appeared in the examination on his behalf.

Whether the petitioner’s alleged written admission of guilt could sustain the findings of impersonation and the consequential orders of dismissal and rejection of his appeal.

Whether the procedural defects alleged by the petitioner warranted interference with those orders.

Rule 17(9) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 provides that where a government servant pleads guilty to a charge, the inquiry authority must record the plea, sign the record, and obtain the government servant’s signature on it.

The petitioner also relied on decisions concerning the role of the presenting officer and the conduct of departmental inquiries, but the judgment did not apply those precedents as the basis for its decision.

The Court noted that the disciplinary and appellate authorities had treated the petitioner’s written admission as establishing the charge of impersonation and had referred to Rule 17(9) in doing so.

Although the petitioner disputed the fairness and procedure of the inquiry, the Court found no sufficient ground, on the material referred to in the impugned orders, to disturb the authorities’ conclusion.

The judgment did not separately examine the petitioner’s specific procedural objections or make a detailed finding on whether the alleged admission had been recorded in strict compliance with Rule 17(9).

The writ petition was dismissed.