Case Background
The case arose from a writ petition filed before the Patna High Court, registered as C.W.J.C. No. 2950 of 2021. The petitioner was a member of the Bihar Military Police (BMP-4), Dumraon, Buxar.
On 23.11.2016, the petitioner was sent on deputation from BMP-4, Dumraon to the office of the Additional Director General, Military Police, Bihar, Patna, by a command certificate. He travelled for joining duty at Patna and reached Dumraon railway station to board the Vibhuti Express.
According to the petitioner, when he reached the station the train had already started moving. He therefore boarded the AC coach that was closest to him. The coach attendant objected and allegedly misbehaved with him.
The petitioner then got down at Arrah railway station to lodge a complaint. However, his complaint was not accepted. Instead, an FIR was lodged against him as Arrah Rail P.S. Case No. 112 of 2016 dated 23.11.2016 under Sections 37(a)(b) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act and Section 145 of the Railway Act.
After the FIR, departmental proceedings were started. By order dated 10.12.2016, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. The allegation was that he had misbehaved with passengers of the AC coach of Vibhuti Express in a drunken state, which led to the FIR and his arrest.
The conduct was labelled as gross indiscipline, irresponsible and unruly behaviour, intrusion, carelessness, criminal behaviour, whimsical or wild behaviour, and tarnishing the image of the police force.
The petitioner filed his reply to the charge sheet. An Inquiry Officer conducted a departmental enquiry and submitted his report on 03.05.2017. A second show cause notice dated 24.10.2018 was then issued to the petitioner, to which he again replied.
Despite this, the Commandant, BMP-4, Dumraon, Buxar passed an order dated 29.03.2019 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Military Police, Central Zone, Patna, but by order dated 01.01.2020 his appeal was rejected.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court through this writ petition seeking quashing of the dismissal and the appellate order, and restoration of his service benefits.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The matter was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah through video conferencing on 17.08.2021 due to the COVID-19 situation. Both sides were represented by counsel.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that this was a classic case of “no evidence”. He submitted that neither the railway officials nor the passengers of the AC coach of Vibhuti Express, with whom the petitioner had allegedly misbehaved in a drunken state, were examined during the enquiry.
He further pointed out that the informant of the FIR and the doctor who conducted the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) test were also not examined. According to him, without these witnesses there was no proof of misconduct.
Crucially, the F.S.L. report of the petitioner’s blood and urine samples was found to contain zero alcohol. This meant, according to the petitioner, that he had not consumed liquor at all, and therefore the core allegation of drunken misbehaviour was false.
The petitioner’s counsel also relied on the enquiry report dated 03.05.2017 itself. He argued that even the Inquiry Officer had not found any evidence that the petitioner consumed liquor. No witness had supported the allegation that any altercation took place between the petitioner and the passengers. Despite this, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charges proved.
The petitioner attacked the report as perfunctory and perverse, being unsupported by evidence and contrary to law.
On the other hand, the State’s counsel argued that there was no procedural irregularity in the departmental proceedings. He emphasized that the High Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, should not sit in appeal over the findings of the enquiry and should not reappreciate evidence to reach a different conclusion.
The State also pointed out that the petitioner had himself admitted, in his reply dated 12.11.2018, that he had travelled in the AC coach of Vibhuti Express without a ticket and had an altercation with the coach attendant. According to the State, this admission was sufficient to show misconduct.
It was also stated on behalf of the State that the petitioner had filed a memorial against the punishment and that the same was still pending. On this basis, the State urged that the dismissal and the appellate order dated 29.03.2019 and 01.01.2020 did not require interference.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court carefully examined the material on record. The Court noted a key undisputed fact: the prosecution (department) had led no oral evidence and produced no documentary evidence to prove the charges during the departmental enquiry.
The Court took note that the Inquiry Officer himself, in his report dated 03.05.2017, had concluded that there was no evidence showing the petitioner was in an intoxicated state on the alleged date and time. Additionally, there was no evidence that any altercation took place between the petitioner and passengers, as neither railway staff nor passengers were examined.
The Court therefore held that the present case was “a case of no evidence”.
The Court also relied on the F.S.L. report, which showed that the blood and urine samples of the petitioner contained zero alcohol. The samples had been taken by police personnel and sent to F.S.L. This finding directly contradicted the allegation that the petitioner was drunk and had misbehaved in that state.
To support its reasoning, the Patna High Court relied on important Supreme Court judgments on departmental enquiries and the standard of evidence required.
First, the Court referred to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570. The quoted passages emphasised that a departmental proceeding is quasi-judicial, the Inquiry Officer must base findings on evidence brought on record, and suspicion or unproved documents such as an FIR cannot replace legal proof. The Supreme Court had held that findings based on ipse dixit, surmises and conjectures cannot be sustained.
Second, the Court cited Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police and others, (1999) 2 SCC 10. In that decision, the Supreme Court explained that courts can interfere in a disciplinary finding if it is based on no evidence or is so unreasonable that no prudent person could reach such a conclusion. The Court there clarified the meaning of a “perverse” finding and stressed that some reliable evidence pointing to guilt is necessary.
Third, the Court relied on State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772. That judgment held that even when an employee does not participate in an enquiry, the Inquiry Officer must fix dates, conduct the enquiry fairly, and record evidence of witnesses. Departmental enquiries must follow principles of natural justice and cannot be casual exercises.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court found that in the petitioner’s case no relevant witness was examined. This included train staff, passengers, the FIR informant, and the doctor who conducted the F.S.L. test. Moreover, the Inquiry Officer himself had not found any evidence supporting the charges.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the enquiry report dated 03.05.2017 was non-existent in the eyes of law, stood vitiated and had to be quashed. It was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi, Kuldeep Singh and Saroj Kumar Sinha.
Once the enquiry report was found unlawful, the punishment order based on it could not survive. The Court therefore quashed the punishment order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Commandant, BMP-4, Dumraon, Buxar.
The Court also examined the appellate order dated 01.01.2020 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Military Police, Central Zone, Patna. It found that the appellate authority had mechanically endorsed the disciplinary authority’s views without independent reasoning. Since the base punishment order was already quashed, the appellate order had “no legs to stand” and was also set aside.
On the question of back wages, the Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings had been attended with mala fides. The actions of the disciplinary authority suggested a design to somehow impose the extreme punishment of dismissal on the petitioner.
In these circumstances, the Court held that it was fit and proper to grant the petitioner 100% back wages along with all other consequential benefits admissible to him. For this relief, the Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya & Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324.
In the result, the writ petition was allowed. The petitioner’s dismissal and the appellate rejection were quashed, the departmental enquiry was declared vitiated, and full back wages and other benefits were directed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court judgment is important for government employees, especially police personnel, facing departmental actions based on criminal accusations like drunkenness or misbehaviour.
The Court has made it clear that departmental authorities cannot dismiss an employee without leading proper evidence. Mere registration of an FIR, untested documents, or general suspicion is not enough.
Where no witnesses are examined and even scientific evidence like F.S.L. reports shows no intoxication, a dismissal order cannot stand. In such cases, the High Court can and will interfere, even in its limited writ jurisdiction, and declare the enquiry and punishment illegal.
The Court has also signalled that when authorities act with apparent mala fides or a fixed mind to punish, they may be directed to pay full back wages and restore all benefits. This provides a strong protection for employees against arbitrary and biased departmental proceedings.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can a police constable be dismissed from service on charges of drunken misbehaviour in a train when no witnesses are examined and the F.S.L. report shows zero alcohol?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that in absence of any oral or documentary evidence, and in view of the F.S.L. report showing zero alcohol, the case was one of “no evidence”. The enquiry report was vitiated and the dismissal order was quashed. -
Issue: Can the High Court interfere with findings of a departmental enquiry in writ jurisdiction when the department claims limited scope of review?
Answer: Yes. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that it can interfere when findings are perverse or based on no evidence, as in the present case. -
Issue: Is an employee who is illegally dismissed in such circumstances entitled to back wages?
Answer: Yes. Noting the mala fide nature of the proceedings and following Deepali Gundu Surwase, the Court granted 100% back wages and all consequential benefits.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570
- Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police and others, (1999) 2 SCC 10
- State of U.P. v. Saroj Kr. Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772
- Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya & Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324
Case Details
Case Number: C.W.J.C. No. 2950 of 2021
Case Title: Indubhushan Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 420
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, Advocate
- For the State/opposite parties: Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG 3
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging dismissal from service and appellate order in departmental proceedings.
Date of Judgment: 17.08.2021
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
