Maharana Pratap Singh, the appellant, was a Constable in the Dog Squad of the Crime Investigation Department (CID). He was appointed in 1973. On 8th August 1988, he was on earned leave, but was directed to resume his duties. Incidentially, on 7th August 1988, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against one Prem Kumar Singh concerning extortion, leading to the formation of a raiding party. The raiding party proceeded to the Rajasthan Hotel in Patna on 8th August 1988, where the accused was expected to receive ₹40,000/- from the informant. The appellant was arrested and brought to Kotwali Police Station on the same day while attempting to resume duties.
On 8th August 1988, the appellant was placed under suspension. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 14th June 1989, and a memorandum of charges was issued, detailing four charges against him. These charges included:
Being registered under Sections 392, 387, 420, 342, 419, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with the ₹40,000/- extortion case involving the informant (Charge 1).
Being registered for cheating the Manager of Elphinstone Cinema Hall on 30th June 1976, where he falsely represented himself as a Sub-Inspector of the CID and was found guilty and punished.
Failing to resume duty on 8th August 1988, despite no information otherwise, and being arrested by Kotwali Police personnel on the same day.
Failing to inform CID Headquarters about his arrest on 8th August 1988 (Charge 4).
The appellant was dismissed from service on 21st June 1996. The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the dismissal order dated 16th November 2016, directing the appellant’s reinstatement with all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal. However, this decision was challenged by the respondents in an intra-court appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order on 16th July 2013, which resulted in the dismissal of the appellant’s writ petition. This current civil appeal is against the judgment and order dated 16th November 2016 of the Division Bench.
Law Involved The case involved provisions from the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Sections 392, 387, 420, 342, 419, and 34, relating to charges like extortion and cheating. Sections 384 and 411 of the IPC were also mentioned in relation to the conviction of offences.
Disciplinary proceedings were governed by rules such as the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 and/or the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 19306. Specifically, Rule 55 of the Rules of 1930 was highlighted for its stipulation that disciplinary action must be clearly articulated in the form of specific charges, accompanied by a detailed statement outlining the allegations78. Note 1 attached to Rule 2 of the Rules of 1935 also outlines the procedure under Rule 557.
The principles of natural justice were central to the appeal, with allegations of their violation during the inquiry proceedings…. The importance of hearing and cross-examination of witnesses, particularly the informant (PW-1) and other material witnesses (PW-2), was emphasized as a fundamental aspect of natural justice…. The concept of “double jeopardy” was also invoked regarding Charge , implying that a person should not be prosecuted twice for the same offence.
Several judicial precedents were cited to support arguments regarding procedural irregularities and the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings, including:
Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan.
G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Anr.…
Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran4
T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. v. K. Meerabai4
Union of India v. H.C. Goel
Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen & Ors
Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan2022
State (Inspector of Police) v. Surya Sankaram Karr
State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makarpur
L.K. Tripathi v. State Bank of India
State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda
Nicholas Piramal India Limited v. Harisingh
Reasoning :The Supreme Court extensively deliberated on the findings of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench. The Single Judge had quashed the dismissal, finding that the Officer-in-Charge was not examined, the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine, departmental and criminal proceedings were stemmed from the same facts, and the dismissal order violated principles of natural justice…. The Single Judge also observed that the Inquiry Officer’s reliance on PW-1’s testimony was flawed, and PW-1 had a strained relationship with the appellant’s family, indicating a potential conflict of interest.
Conversely, the Division Bench, relying on Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran4 and T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. v. K. Meerabai, appreciated the evidence that led to the conclusion of the appellant’s innocence, finding it unsustainable due to the lack of a justifiable basis4. They found no procedural error or breach of natural justice during the inquiry.
The Supreme Court carefully examined the contentions of both parties…. The appellant argued that PW-1 was not cross-examined, PW-2 was made available but without opportunity for cross-examination, charges 1 and 2 were not substantially proved, and Charge constituted double jeopardy…. They also highlighted that the Inquiry Officer’s findings were perverse. The respondents contended that the charges were validly proved, the inquiry was fair, and the dismissal was justified.
The Court’s reasoning for setting aside the Division Bench’s judgment focused on several key points:
Charge 1 (Extortion/Blackmailing): The Inquiry Officer expressed disbelief at PW-2’s version, who was the second informant and crucial witness. The Supreme Court found that PW-2’s testimony was not allowed to be cross-examined, making the process unfair. The Inquiry Officer’s report itself lacked evidence for charge No.116. The Court affirmed that failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses whose statements are relied upon constitutes a breach of natural justice….
Charge 2 (Cinema Hall Cheating): This charge had already been subject to a disciplinary proceeding where the appellant was acquitted. The Court stated that prosecuting him again for the same misconduct amounted to double jeopardy.
Charges 3 & 4 (Failure to Resume Duty/Inform Arrest): These charges were derived from Charge 1. Since Charge 1 was not proved, Charges 3 and 4 also fell as they were based on the same unsubstantiated allegations related to the incident and subsequent arrest…. The Inquiry Report acknowledged the lack of evidence for Charge .
Procedural Irregularities: The Court found that the charge-sheet against the appellant was vaguely worded and lacked essential particulars, violating Rule 55 of the Rules of 19307. The Inquiry Officer’s reliance on hearsay evidence and failure to conduct a proper cross-examination of key witnesses like PW-1 and PW-2 also constituted a breach of natural justice…. The Court emphasized that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse and based on extraneous factors and mala fide intentions.
The Supreme Court granted the appeal. It set aside the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the order of the Single Judge dated 16th November 2016. Consequently, the appellant’s dismissal from service was set aside. The appellant is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits from the date of the dismissal, which was 21st June 1996. However, considering the appellant’s age (approximately 74 years old in 2025) and the time elapsed since his dismissal (20 years since 1996), the Court directed that the relief of reinstatement be limited to the quantum of monetary relief that would meet the ends of justice .
The appellant was awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹30 lakh (Rupees thirty lakh) to be paid by the respondents within three months from the date of the order, inclusive of all service and retiral benefits. Additionally, the appellant is entitled to costs assessed at ₹5 lakh (Rupees five lakh) .
Maharana Pratap Singh V. The State Of Bihar And Others
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 554: (DoJ 23-04-2025)
