Dismissal without departmental inquiry and proof of charges violates Article 311(2).

The petitioner, a constable posted with Bihar Military Police-2, was reported absent from duty on 7 October 2018 and was subsequently apprehended in an allegedly intoxicated condition.

A criminal case was registered against him under Section 37(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.

He was again apprehended in an allegedly drunken condition on 27 March 2019, resulting in a second criminal case.

A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner.

Although notices were issued, the petitioner did not submit an explanation.

The Commandant, Bihar Military Police-2, thereafter dismissed the petitioner from service by Memo No. 116/GO dated 2 May 2019, allegedly on the grounds of indiscipline, misconduct, negligence and conduct unbecoming of a government servant.

The petitioner challenged the dismissal, contending that no formal charges were framed, no regular inquiry was held, no witnesses were examined, and there was no scientific or medical proof of alcohol consumption.

Whether the petitioner’s dismissal was legally sustainable when no formal departmental inquiry was conducted, no witnesses were examined, and the alleged consumption of liquor was not proved by legally admissible evidence.

Whether the disciplinary authority could impose the punishment of dismissal merely on the basis of police or departmental communications and the alleged failure of the petitioner to submit an explanation.

Whether, after setting aside the dismissal, the petitioner was entitled to full back wages or a lesser amount for the period he remained out of service.

Departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and findings of misconduct must be supported by some reliable evidence; mere suspicion cannot substitute proof, as held in Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar.

Judicial review is permissible where findings are unsupported by evidence, perverse, or such that no reasonable person could have reached them, as explained in Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police.

The delinquent employee must receive a reasonable opportunity of hearing, including an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon.

Investigative material or documents do not automatically constitute evidence in a departmental inquiry, and merely producing a document does not prove its contents, in terms of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank.

Alleged alcohol consumption should ordinarily be substantiated through scientific or medical evidence; Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra recognizes that smell of alcohol, unsteady gait or slurred speech, by themselves, may not conclusively establish consumption.

Even in an ex parte inquiry, the department must examine its witnesses and assess whether the unrebutted evidence proves the charges, as emphasized in State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha.

Article 311(2) of the Constitution requires a fair departmental inquiry before dismissal, unless the constitutional exception dispensing with inquiry is properly invoked and supported by recorded reasons; the principles in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, Reena Rani v. State of Haryana and Risal Singh v. State of Haryana were relied upon in this regard.

The Court held that the disciplinary authority had neither framed formal charges nor appointed conducting and presenting officers, and had not examined any witnesses to establish the alleged misconduct.

The petitioner’s failure to submit an explanation could have permitted an ex parte inquiry, but it did not dispense with the department’s obligation to prove the charges through evidence.

The criminal cases, departmental letters and the wife’s representation could not, without being properly proved in the disciplinary proceeding, establish the petitioner’s consumption of liquor or the other alleged misconduct.

No breath-analyser report, blood or urine examination, medical evidence, or testimony of the relevant witnesses was produced.

Consequently, the finding of guilt was based on insufficient evidence and was perverse.

The Court further found that the Director General of Police’s direction to dismiss police personnel for liquor consumption could not replace the mandatory requirements of a fair inquiry under Article 311(2).

However, because the petitioner had failed to respond to the notices and the proceeding had proceeded ex parte, the Court considered it appropriate to restrict the monetary relief rather than grant full back wages.

The dismissal order contained in Memo No. 116/GO dated 2 May 2019 was quashed as illegal, perverse and unsustainable because the charges were not proved through a procedurally valid departmental inquiry.

The petitioner was directed to be reinstated, but was held entitled to only 25% of his salary for the period between dismissal and reinstatement, with the exercise to be completed within three months.

There was no order as to costs.