Maharana Pratap Singh vs The State of Bihar & Ors.

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 – R.55 – Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 – Note 1 attached to Rule 2 – Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 – Whether due process was followed in dismissing the appellant from service and whether his dismissal from service is justified, on facts and in the circumstances: Held: R.55 of the Rules of 1930 stipulates that the grounds for the proposed disciplinary action must be clearly articulated in the form of specific charges, accompanied by a detailed statement outlining the allegations supporting each charge – A specific objection have been taken on behalf of the appellant that the charges were vague, indefinite, not specific and lacking in material particulars – However, in view of withholding of the departmental file, the presumption that can legitimately and validly be drawn is that the respondents did not deliberately produce the departmental file lest the illegality in proceeding against the appellant from the inception is exposed – The version of the appellant that the charges drawn up against him were vague, indefinite, unspecific and lacked essential particulars has to be accepted – Furthermore, on perusal of the materials before this Court, preponderance of probability favours the appellant for a finding to be returned that he was denied his right to cross-examine PW-1 – Next, the Inquiry Officer expressed disbelief at the version of PW-2 in course of cross-examination when he unequivocally denied the appellant’s involvement in the alleged offences – Inquiry Officer suggested that PW-2 might have been unduly influenced or persuaded by the appellant, noting that the cross-examination occurred after a substantial delay of nine

(9) months from the date of PW-2’s testimony in-chief – It is once again essential to fall back on withholding of the departmental file pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings, thereby preventing an ascertainment of the cause of the delay in production by the prosecution of PW-2 for cross-examination by the appellant – In any event, appellant cannot be held liable for such a prolonged gap – The Inquiry Officer was not justified in the approach he adopted while conducting the inquiry – Findings had to be returned by him neither on his ipse dixit nor surmises and conjectures but on the basis of legal evidence – It is imperative to further underline that the chargesheet against the appellant was issued based on the written complaint of the informant – Law is again clear to the effect that mere production of a document does not constitute proof – If chargesheet is issued on the basis of a written complaint, the author/complainant has to be produced – Notably, in the instant case, the informant/complainant had not been examined – This, is one other glaring error in the decision-making process – Upon reviewing the materials and considering the aforementioned anomalies in the issuance of the chargesheet and the procedural lapses, none of which can be attributed to the appellant, and in light of the absence of the departmental file pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings, it is concluded beyond any cavil of doubt that due process was not followed in dismissing the appellant from service, rendering the dismissal unjustified. [Paras 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43 44] Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 – R.55 – Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 – Note 1 attached to Rule 2 – Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 – In disciplinary proceedings, inquiry officer found appellant guilty of all charges – However, he was acquitted in criminal proceedings – Whether, in light of the facts, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances of the case, the charges in the criminal proceedings are substantially identical to those in the departmental proceedings, such that an acquittal in the criminal case would render the findings in the disciplinary proceedings vulnerable:

Held: While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well-established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context – In such cases, upholding the findings in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive – A plain reading of the materials available on record only reveals that charge no.1 in the disciplinary closely resembled the allegations in the criminal proceedings – The judgment acquitting the appellant reveals that the prosecution “miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt” as both the informant and PW-2 refused to identify the appellant in court – Besides, the appellant’s case is strengthened by the principle of adverse inference – It can be reasonably inferred that the respondents deliberately withheld the scanned copy of the departmental file, which was essential to assess whether the charges, witnesses, evidence, and circumstances in both the criminal and departmental proceedings were substantially similar or identical, likely due to concerns over the potential adverse consequences – Therefore, the finding of the appellant being guilty of charge no.1 cannot be sustained following his acquittal in the criminal proceedings, which seem to have involved substantially similar or identical charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances. [Paras 47-50, 52, 53] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114(g) – Failure of party to produce evidence – Presumption that withheld evidence would be unfavourable – Discussed. [Para 27]

Constitution of India – Arts 226, 227 – High Court does not exercise powers that are available to an appellate court – Decision-making process falls for scrutiny – Discussed. [Paras 55, 56]