The Patna High Court has quashed the dismissal of a Sub-Inspector of Police, holding that the departmental inquiry suffered from fundamental violations of natural justice including the Conducting Officer assuming the role of Presenting Officer, reliance on documents never exhibited or supplied to the delinquent despite repeated requests, and the appellate authority rejecting the appeal without any hearing in direct contravention of a prior court direction. The Court directed notional continuity in service up to the date of superannuation and payment of all retiral benefits within three months.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. As per Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, mere non-appointment of a Presenting Officer does not by itself vitiate an inquiry unless prejudice is shown. However, if the Inquiry Officer assumes the role of a prosecutor and acts in a manner demonstrating bias, the principle of natural justice is violated.
Failure to supply documents sought by the delinquent officer, despite repeated representations, violates the principles of natural justice and renders the opportunity to defend illusory. The Patna High Court in Ganesh Pandey v. State of Bihar held that such non-supply vitiates the entire proceeding.
No. The principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one can be a judge in his own cause) prohibits the same authority from acting as both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The Patna High Court held this violates natural justice.
Parity of treatment is a legitimate consideration in service jurisprudence. Where a co-delinquent proceeded against on identical facts has had the dismissal order set aside, and no distinguishing feature is pointed out, the same relief must be extended to the petitioner.
