Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 13846

Harish Kumar, J
State of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Bhagwan Singh – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.27 of 2025|Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3073 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.K.Shahi, Manoj Kumar
For the Respondents: Upendra Mishra, Sunil Kumar, Sanjeeb Kumar Sanju, Bhaskar Sandilya, Ravi Kumar

Failure to appoint a Presenting Officer and non-disclosure of critical documents during a departmental enquiry constitute a fundamental violation of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, and principles of natural justice, rendering the resulting disciplinary action and dismissal order void-ab-initio.

Headnote:(A) Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 - Rule 17 - Departmental Enquiry - Non-appointment of Presenting Officer - Mandatory procedural requirement - Violation of principles of natural justice - Effect of.

(B) Departmental Enquiry - Failure to supply documents - Rule 17(4) - Rule requires delivery of charge, list of documents, and list of witnesses - Failure to do so renders proceedings vitiated.

Facts of the case:
The respondent, a Sub-Inspector, was dismissed from service following a departmental proceeding initiated on allegations of consuming liquor during duty hours based on a breath analyzer test. The respondent challenged the dismissal, citing procedural lapses including the failure to appoint a Presenting Officer and non-supply of relevant documents (Breath Analyzer Report). The Single Judge allowed the petition, primarily relying on the view that the Breath Analyzer Report is not conclusive proof of alcohol consumption.

Findings of Court:
The Division Bench held that while the Single Judge’s reliance on the conclusive nature of the Breath Analyzer Report was incorrect regarding the legal proposition, the dismissal order is nevertheless unsustainable due to gross violations of the 2005 Rules. Specifically, the failure to appoint a Presenting Officer and the non-supply of documents essential for defense violated principles of natural justice and mandatory procedural provisions.

Issues: Whether the departmental proceeding was vitiated by procedural irregularities, specifically the absence of a Presenting Officer and failure to supply documents.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all (Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor). Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, causing the Enquiry Officer to assume the prosecutor's role, constitutes a blatant violation of natural justice, vitiating the entire enquiry. Remanding is not a mechanism to cover departmental negligence.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of administrative disciplinary proceedings, charges, and alleged procedural failures. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. evaluation of breath analyzer reports and interpretation of evidentiary statutes. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. vitiation of disciplinary proceedings due to non-compliance with statutory procedure and appointment of presenting officers. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State challenging the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3073 of 2022 in allowing the writ petition and holding that the petitioner is entitled to get all financial and consequential reliefs from the date of his suspension till the date of attainment of the age of superannuation with a further direction that his pensionary benefit shall be calculated and paid on the basis of financial benefit.

2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, Bhagwan Singh seeking for following relief(s):-

“i. For quashing the charge dated 09.11.2016 and initiating of departmental proceeding no. 84/16, Muzaffarpur, District Police, Muzaffarpur against the petitioner and including the finding dated 20.06.2017 passed by the Operating/Enquiry officer, (Respt.No.6) holding the petitioner guilty, who send to the same to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur (Respt.No.5) for further orders.

ii. For quashing the dismissal order contained in memo no-1173 dated 24.07.2017 passed by deputy inspector general of police (DIG), Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur. (Respt.No.4) the recommendation of Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur.

iii. For quashing the Appellate order contained in Muzaffarpur Range, Muzaffarpur District order No. 2358/17, vide memo no. 6073 dated 24.11.2017 passed by the L.G. Muzaffarpur Range, Muzaffarpur (Respt.no.3), whereby and where under the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal dated 24.07.2017 has been rejected and order of dismissal has been affirmed.

iv. For quashing the departmental proceeding no. 84/16, Muzaffarpur, District Police, Muzaffarpur, initiated against the petitioner.

v. For directing the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential and monetary benefits.

vi. For any other relief/ reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled to.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the Sub-Inspector of Police and posted at Vishwavidyalaya Police Station, Muzzafarpur and while he was on duty, Excise Case No. 330 of 2016 was instituted against him on 28.10.2016 under section 37(B) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereafter ‘2016 Act’) on the allegation that he had consumed liquor during duty hours. The petitioner was arrested and taken to judicial custody mainly on the basis of the report of the Breath Analyzer Test.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that after his arrest, he was produced in the government hospital and it was found that he was physically and mentally fit and nothing was mentioned in the said report that there was any alcohol intake by him. The petitioner was placed under orders of suspension by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzzafarpur vide memo no. 4455 dated 28.10.2016 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and the charges were framed vide memo no. 3574 dated 09.11.2016. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan was appointed as the conducting officer but no Presenting Officer was appointed. The petitioner was granted bail on 09.11.2016 and thereafter the memo of charge was provided to him. However, neither the Breath Analyzer Test Report nor other relevant documents were provided to him in clear violation of Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereafter ‘2005 Rules’). The suspension order of the petitioner was revoked on 22.11.2016.

The petitioner filed the show-cause in the departmental proceeding and took a specific stand that he had not consu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 13846

Harish Kumar, JState of Bihar – AppellantVersusBhagwan Singh – RespondentLetters Patent Appeal No.27 of 2025|Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3073 of 2022

Cases Referred (2)

Harish Kumar, J
State of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Bhagwan Singh – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.27 of 2025|Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3073 of 2022