Pre-determined mindset and procedural bias in disciplinary proceedings vitiate show cause notices and subsequent termination.

The petitioner, a police personnel, was arrested on 11.08.2023 in connection with ACB P.S. Case No. 60/2023 under Section 120B IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

He was suspended and subsequently served a show-cause notice on 18.09.2023, which asked why penalties should not be imposed rather than asking him to explain the allegations

An enquiry was conducted where eight unlisted witnesses were examined without prior notice to the petitioner, and the petitioner was cross-examined by the Enquiry Officer after each witness statement

A second show-cause notice was issued on 13.12.2023 with the disciplinary authority already recording that charges were proved

The petitioner was dismissed from service on 26.12.2023, and his appeal was rejected on 17.04.2024

The court relied on *Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girija Shankar Pant* regarding the "real danger of bias" test in administrative actions

It applied *Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India*, establishing that a show-cause notice must not be an "empty ceremony" with a prejudged opinion

The court cited *Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma*, which prohibits an Enquiry Officer from playing the role of a prosecutor

and *Chand Mohammad Ali v. State of Assam* regarding the right to a defence assistant

Finally, it followed *Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya* concerning the principles for awarding back wages upon reinstatement

The court found that the initial show-cause notice was fatally flawed as it presumed guilt by asking the petitioner to show cause against "penalties" rather than the "charges," reflecting a biased mindset

Procedurally, the enquiry was compromised because the Enquiry Officer took over the role of the Presenting Officer, called eight unlisted witnesses without notice to the petitioner, and improperly cross-examined the petitioner himself

The court noted the absurdity of making a senior co-accused a witness against a junior subordinate in the same corruption matter

Furthermore, the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and concluded the petitioner was liable for punishment *before* serving the second show-cause notice, rendering the petitioner's subsequent representation a mere formality

These collective lapses constituted a gross violation of natural justice and statutory fair play

The court directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service for seniority and pension purposes

It ordered that the petitioner be entitled to arrears of salary (minus allowances for actual duty) subject to an affidavit confirming he was not gainfully employed during the interregnum

The court reserved the liberty for the disciplinary authority to act based on the outcome of the pending criminal trial