Electronic evidence is inadmissible in departmental proceedings without mandatory certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

The petitioner, while serving as the SHO of Balia Police Station, was subjected to a departmental proceeding following a viral video alleging he demanded and accepted bribes for the release of a seized vehicle.

A preliminary enquiry found the charges proved, leading to a formal charge memo on 18.04.2022.

The petitioner argued the video was doctored and that the release of the vehicle was delayed due to a pending report from the Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI), not his own inaction.

Although the Enquiry Officer explicitly found that charges of demanding or receiving money were not proved, he concluded the petitioner was "negligent".

The Disciplinary Authority did not pass a final order but referred the matter to the Director General of Police (DGP).

The DGP, acting as the appellate authority, assumed original jurisdiction and dismissed the petitioner from service.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceeding was vitiated due to the Appellate Authority (DGP) usurping the power of the Original Disciplinary Authority, thereby depriving the petitioner of a legal remedy.

2. Whether an unverified viral video is admissible as evidence in a departmental proceeding without compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

3. Whether the Disciplinary Authority can differ from the Enquiry Officer's findings without assigning specific reasons as required under Rules 18(3) and 18(4) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.

Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, specifically Rules 17 and 18, which mandate that the Disciplinary Authority must provide reasons for differing from an Enquiry report and ensure a fair hearing.

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and the precedent in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), which establishes that a certificate is a mandatory condition precedent for the admissibility of electronic records.

Principle from Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1999) that findings based on "no evidence" or mere suspicion are perverse and subject to judicial review.

The Court found several procedural and legal infirmities. First, the Disciplinary Authority failed to pass an order, instead referring the case to the DGP (the Appellate Authority), who passed the dismissal order; this "usurpation" of power deprived the petitioner of his right to a statutory appeal.

Second, the Enquiry Officer's finding of "negligence" was held to be perverse because the petitioner proved the vehicle was released within 24 hours of the court order, and any prior delay was attributable to the MVI.

Third, the second show-cause notice was defective as it failed to assign reasons for disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer’s finding that bribery charges were not proved.

Finally, the Court ruled that the viral video had zero evidentiary value because it was not supported by an FSL report or a Section 65B certificate, rendering the dismissal a case of "no evidence".

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the enquiry report dated 17.04.2023, the dismissal order by the DGP dated 04.09.2025, and all consequential orders. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner immediately and pay all consequential benefits, including back wages, within three months.