Dismissal is vitiated where the disciplinary authority fails to serve a second show-cause notice.

The petitioner, a Bihar Police Constable appointed on 6 June 2007, was implicated in Nagar P.S. Case No. 738 of 2019 under Section 37(2) of the Bihar Prohibition of Excise Act, 2018, on the allegation that he was intoxicated, based primarily on a breath-analyser report.

He was suspended with effect from 19 October 2019, though the suspension was subsequently revoked.

A departmental proceeding, Buxar District Departmental Proceeding No. 03 of 2020, was initiated, and a charge memorandum was issued on 11 January 2020.

The petitioner submitted his explanation before the Enquiry Officer on 26 September 2020, and the Enquiry Officer submitted a finding of guilt on 30 November 2020.

The Superintendent of Police, Buxar thereafter dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 15 December 2020. His departmental appeal and memorial appeal were rejected on 19 May 2021 and 18 July 2022, respectively.

Whether the disciplinary authority violated Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 by passing the dismissal order without serving a second show-cause notice after receipt of the enquiry report

Whether the dismissal order, appellate order and memorial appeal order were sustainable in the absence of compliance with the mandatory post-enquiry procedure

What consequential relief and further procedure should follow from such procedural violation

Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 requires the disciplinary authority, after receiving the enquiry report, to take the prescribed post-enquiry action, including providing the delinquent employee an opportunity to submit a further explanation before imposing punishment.

The Court also directed the disciplinary authority to consider the ratio laid down in Abhay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 5460 of 2025, decided on 2 April 2026, while reconsidering the matter.

The governing principle applied was that a major disciplinary penalty imposed without compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguard of a second show-cause opportunity is legally unsustainable.

The Court examined the State’s contention that the petitioner’s document described as his “last explanation” constituted the required second show-cause. It rejected that submission because the document was dated 26 September 2020 and had been submitted before the Enquiry Officer, whereas the enquiry report was prepared only on 30 November 2020.

Thus, the document could not amount to an explanation against the findings of the completed enquiry.

Although the disciplinary authority referred generally to the petitioner’s explanation in the final order, it did not record that any second show-cause notice had been issued after receipt of the enquiry report.

The Court therefore held that the disciplinary authority had proceeded directly to impose dismissal, in gross violation of Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.

Since the defect affected the mandatory decision-making procedure, the dismissal and consequential orders could not be sustained.

The disciplinary authority was directed to serve a second show-cause notice on the petitioner, consider his reply, apply the principles stated in Abhay Kumar Singh, and pass a reasoned and final order within 90 days thereafter.

The Court did not itself direct reinstatement or grant consequential monetary benefits; the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.