Predetermined Show-Cause Notice Vitiates Disciplinary Proceedings: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Police Personnel

The Gauhati High Court has held that a departmental proceeding cannot be sustained where the disciplinary authority shows a pre-determined mind at the very stage of issuing the first show cause notice, and where the enquiry is conducted in a manner contrary to law, rendering the process unfair

Justice Rajesh Mazumdar observed, “…the words used in the first show cause notice like 'gross misconduct', 'act of indiscipline and dereliction of duty' and 'absolute lack of integrity' go to show that the disciplinary authority had already arrived at a finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner even before initiation of the departmental proceeding.”

“…it is evident that the enquiry officer had acted as the presenting officer and the presenting officer had remained a mere spectator… such a course adopted in the enquiry is wholly impermissible in law,” the Court further said.

The above ruling was made in a writ petition which was filed challenging an order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Morigaon, and the appellate order passed by the Inspector General of Police (CR), by which the penalty imposed on the petitioner was upheld. The petitioner also assailed the charge memo, the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report served on him.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner, a police personnel, had been arrested in connection with a case registered under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with two other persons working in the same department. He was then placed under suspension and was later released on bail. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Morigaon issued the first show cause notice asking him to show cause as to why any of the prescribed penalties should not be imposed on him.

The petitioner's case was that the proceeding had been initiated with a pre-determined view and the manner in which the enquiry was conducted had vitiated the process.

Examining the record, the Court noted that the allegation statement did not specify how the petitioner had exhibited moral turpitude or failed to uphold integrity, and that the fact of arrest had been projected as a charge, “which, in law, cannot be so done.”

The Court also recorded, “Such procedure is unheard of in law, where a prime accused in a criminal trial who is also a senior officer, can be made a witness against a junior co-accused in a departmental proceeding on the same issue. In the opinion of this Court, when both the senior officer and the junior had been found to be involved in the same criminal case with allegations of corruption, at best both could have been made to suffer a common disciplinary proceeding, but allowing the disciplinary authority to make one a witness against the other and not to put the senior officer to face any proceedings would be preposterous proposition, which cannot stand to reasonableness.”

On the manner of enquiry, the Court observed, “It is apparent from the records, that while finalizing his opinion on the guilt of the petitioner, the enquiry officer has neither required the presenting officer to present a presenting officers brief nor required the petitioner herein to present a defence brief. Therefore, on the facts recorded in the disciplinary proceedings, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that the enquiry officer has played the role of a presenting officer also, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings.”

The Court also examined the second show cause notice and held, “…the disciplinary authority has already made up his mind… the opportunity… was a mere formality… such empty formalities would vitiate the enquiry proceedings.”

Therefore, the Court held that the first show cause notice the enquiry proceedings which culminated in a biased report, the second show cause notice, the order by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated as well the orders passed by the appellate authority “to be beyond the contours of law as understood in service jurisprudence, deserving to be declared null and void.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the entire disciplinary proceeding and the dismissal order, and directed reinstatement of the petitioner.

Case Title:Md. Mizanul Hoque v. State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case Number: WP(C)/2888/2024

Click Here To Read Judgement