The Patna High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Vikash Kumar @ Vikas Kumar (LPA No. 446 of 2024), concerning the dismissal of a constable from the Bihar Military Police, now known as the Bihar Special Armed Police. The constable, Vikash Kumar, was dismissed from service after being accused of misconduct involving a birthday celebration with a probationary lady constable. The dismissal was based on an inquiry that allegedly found him guilty of the said misconduct.
The respondent, Vikash Kumar, challenged the dismissal in the Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2546 of 2023. The learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court set aside the dismissal order, citing a lack of valid evidence in the inquiry. The State of Bihar, dissatisfied with this decision, filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court.
Important Legal Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Evidence in Departmental Inquiries: The primary legal issue was whether the dismissal of Vikash Kumar was based on valid and admissible evidence. The court had to determine if the inquiry conducted by the department adhered to legal standards, particularly concerning the presentation and consideration of evidence.
2. Scope of Remand in Disciplinary Proceedings: Another critical issue was whether the case warranted a remand for fresh evidence to be led, as argued by the State’s counsel, or if the dismissal should be quashed outright due to the lack of valid evidence.
Court’s Decision on Legal Issues:
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy, upheld the decision of the Single Judge, dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Bihar. The court made several key observations:
– Lack of Valid Evidence: The court emphasized that the departmental inquiry lacked valid evidence. The only testimony presented was from officers who had conducted a preliminary inquiry. Their statements were based on hearsay, and the actual eyewitnesses were never examined before the Enquiry Officer. The court found this to be insufficient to sustain the dismissal of Vikash Kumar.
– No Scope for Remand: The court categorically rejected the State’s plea for a remand, stating that allowing a remand in such cases would condone the negligence of the disciplinary authority. The court noted that remand is appropriate only in cases where a technical defect has occurred, and not where the inquiry itself was conducted negligently without proper evidence.
– Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings: The judgment reiterated the principle that while the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is the preponderance of probability, this standard cannot be met in the absence of any valid evidence.
Also Read
Key Observations of the Court:
The court quoted from the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015), emphasizing that “If in every case where no valid evidence is led at the enquiry proceedings, there is a remand made, it would be offering a premium to the negligence of the Management/Disciplinary Authority.”
