Failure to appoint a Presenting Officer and supply the enquiry report vitiates disciplinary proceedings.

The petitioners, Santosh Kumar and Sonu Kumar, challenged the dismissal/termination orders passed by the Commandant, B.M.P.-7, Katihar, in Departmental Proceedings Nos. 12 and 13 of 2016, respectively, through Memo No. 804/Ra. Ka. dated 10 April 2017.

They also challenged the appellate orders dated 25 March 2022 passed by the D.I.G., Bihar Special Police Force, North Mandal, Muzaffarpur.

The allegations were that the petitioners had obtained their appointment letters by fraud, including alleged discrepancies between their signatures at different places.

The petitioners contended that the departmental inquiries were conducted without appointing a Presenting Officer and that copies of the inquiry reports were not supplied to them before the final orders were passed.

The State contended that the petitioners had been given adequate opportunity to defend themselves and to cross-examine witnesses.

The Court found that the State’s counter-affidavit did not specifically answer the allegations concerning the absence of a Presenting Officer and non-supply of the inquiry reports, and instead contained an evasive response.

Whether the departmental proceedings were vitiated because they were conducted without the appointment and participation of a Presenting Officer.

Whether the dismissal/termination orders were unsustainable because the petitioners were not supplied copies of the inquiry reports before the final orders were passed.

Whether, in view of the allegations of fraud and signature discrepancies, the matters should be remanded for a fresh departmental inquiry in accordance with law.

The Court applied Rule 17(3) and Rule 17(4) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which require the disciplinary authority to set out the substance of the imputations, relevant facts, and the lists of documents and witnesses supporting the charges.

The Court relied on Upendra Pandit v. State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary & Others, 2023 (4) PLJR 568, holding that failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 17, including conducting the inquiry without a Presenting Officer, constitutes a serious procedural lapse that vitiates the departmental proceeding.

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, including the requirement that the delinquent employee be furnished the inquiry report and given an opportunity to submit a representation before the disciplinary authority passes the final order.

The Court held that the petitioners had specifically pleaded that no Presenting Officer had been appointed and that the inquiry reports had not been supplied before the disciplinary orders were passed.

The State failed to provide a specific and satisfactory response to these allegations in its counter-affidavit.

Applying Upendra Pandit, the Court treated the conduct of the inquiry without a Presenting Officer as a serious violation of Rule 17 and therefore a defect going to the validity of the proceedings.

The non-supply of the inquiry reports additionally deprived the petitioners of an effective opportunity to respond before the final orders were made.

However, because the charge memo contained serious allegations of fraud and alleged mismatches in the petitioners’ signatures, the Court did not terminate the proceedings finally; instead, it remanded the matters to the Disciplinary Authority for a lawful inquiry conducted in the presence of a Presenting Officer and followed by supply of the inquiry report and issuance of a second show-cause notice.

It set aside the dismissal/termination orders dated 10 April 2017 and the appellate orders dated 25 March 2022.

The matters were remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct fresh departmental proceedings in accordance with law, in the presence of a Presenting Officer, and thereafter to furnish the inquiry reports and issue a second show-cause notice before passing final orders.

The Court thus held that the procedural defects vitiated the impugned orders, while preserving the respondents’ authority to reconsider the allegations of fraud through a legally compliant departmental inquiry.