Safiya Malik

The Patna High Court has set aside the dismissal of a government employee who was removed from service following a departmental inquiry into allegations of bribery. The court ruled that the proceedings were marred by procedural irregularities and noted that the petitioner had been acquitted in a parallel criminal case. It directed the authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Correspondence Clerk in the Minor Irrigation Division, Gaya. In 2005, a complaint was lodged against him by one Amar Kumar Shrivastava, alleging that he had demanded illegal gratification for processing a file related to a compassionate appointment. Acting upon the complaint, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau constituted a trap team, which subsequently arrested the petitioner while he was allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs. 2500/-.

As a result of the arrest, a case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was immediately taken into judicial custody and placed under suspension effective from 29.12.2005.

Upon his release, the suspension was revoked, and departmental proceedings were initiated in 2006. A memo of charge was issued, which the petitioner responded to, denying the allegations and requesting that the departmental proceedings be stayed until the conclusion of the pending criminal trial. He also pointed out deficiencies in the charge memo, including the absence of a list of witnesses and supporting documents.

Despite the petitioner's objections, the proceedings remained pending for several years before being revived in 2014. The petitioner was again placed under suspension through Memo No. 389 dated 22.02.2014. The newly appointed Enquiry Officer continued the inquiry and submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty, which led to his dismissal from service through Memo No. 1042 dated 18.06.2014. The petitioner subsequently filed a statutory appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority through Memo No. 7466 dated 17.10.2019.

While the appeal was pending, the criminal trial concluded, and on 18.05.2016, the Special Judge, Vigilance-1st, Patna, acquitted the petitioner in Special Case No. 31/2005. The trial court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The petitioner then brought the acquittal to the attention of the Appellate Authority in support of his appeal. However, the appellate authority dismissed his appeal without addressing the acquittal's impact on the disciplinary proceedings.

The High Court, upon examining the case, identified multiple procedural irregularities in the departmental proceedings. It noted that the charge memo did not include a list of witnesses or documents, in violation of Rule 17(3)(4) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The court remarked: “Admittedly, the memo of charge neither contains the list of documents nor list of witnesses by which and whom articles of charge are proposed to be sustainable.”

The court further observed that the departmental inquiry relied heavily on the FIR and related documents without substantiating them through witness examination. Citing Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank [(2009) 2 SCC 570], the court held that a departmental inquiry must be conducted based on legally admissible evidence and that an employee’s defense must be adequately considered. It found that the inquiry report was not supported by independent and credible evidence.

The High Court also examined the effect of the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal trial. It referred to G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat [(2006) 5 SCC 446], stating that when departmental and criminal proceedings are based on identical facts and the accused is acquitted in the criminal case, the findings of the disciplinary authority must be reconsidered. The court stated: “If the evidence and circumstances in the departmental inquiry are identical to those in the criminal trial, and the criminal court finds the allegations unproven, it is unjust and oppressive to allow the disciplinary authority to maintain a contrary conclusion.”

The judgment also criticized the inordinate delay in conducting the departmental proceedings. The court noted that departmental inquiries in corruption cases should be concluded in a timely manner to ensure procedural fairness. It observed that the proceedings against the petitioner spanned over a decade, stating: “The authorities have exhausted more than a decade in disposing of the departmental proceeding, which is alarming in nature and a sheer infraction of the right to speedy disposal.”

Additionally, the court examined the manner in which the appellate authority had handled the petitioner’s appeal. It found that the appellate order failed to consider the legal impact of the acquittal and merely affirmed the disciplinary authority’s findings without conducting an independent analysis. The court stated the importance of a reasoned appellate order, stating that an appeal is not a mere formality but an opportunity to rectify errors in the original decision.

In light of its findings, the Patna High Court set aside both the dismissal order (Memo No. 1042 dated 18.06.2014) and the appellate order (Memo No. 7466 dated 17.10.2019). The court directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits as per Rule 13(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, in line with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya [(2013) 10 SCC 324].

Case Title: Mukesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number: CWJC No. 2114 of 2020

Bench: Justice Harish Kumar

[Read/Download order]