MAHARANA PRATAP SINGH versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1662 · Decided: 23-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1662 : 2025 INSC 554
Maharana Pratap Singh 
v. 
The State of Bihar & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 5497 of 2025)
23 April 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether due process was followed in dismissing the appellant 
from service and whether his dismissal from service is justified, 
on facts and in the circumstances; whether, in light of the facts, 
evidence, witnesses, and circumstances of the case, the charges 
in the criminal proceedings are substantially identical to those in 
the departmental proceedings, such that an acquittal in the criminal 
case would render the findings in the disciplinary proceedings 
vulnerable.
Headnotes†
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1930 – R.55 – Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline 
and Appeal) Rules, 1935 – Note 1 attached to Rule 2 – Bihar 
Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) 
Rules, 2005 – Appellant was appointed as a constable in the 
dog squad of CID – Disciplinary and criminal proceedings were 
initiated against the appellant – In disciplinary proceedings, 
inquiry officer found appellant guilty of all four charges – 
Consequently, appellant was dismissed from service by memo 
dated 21.06.1996 – Whereas, in the criminal proceeding, the 
appellant was acquitted of the charges by the Appellate Court – 
Aggrieved by dismissal from service, the appellant filed writ 
petition – The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the 
dismissal order dated 21.06.1996 – However, the Division 
Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of Single 
Judge of the High Court and held that interference with the 
order of dismissal was not warranted – Correctness:
Held: Finding of the appellant being guilty of charge no.1 cannot be 
sustained following his acquittal in the criminal proceedings, which 
seem to have involved substantially similar or identical charges, 
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
1663
Maharana Pratap Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
evidence, witnesses, and circumstances – In the instant case, 
it is evident that the denial of the right to cross-examine PW-1 
caused prejudice to the appellant, who should have been afforded 
the opportunity for cross-examination for three reasons: first, had 
PW-1 been cross-examined, particularly regarding the appellant’s 
claim of personal animosity, it is plausible that such examination 
could have influenced the Inquiry Officer’s findings, potentially 
leading to a different conclusion; second, the Inquiry Officer 
placed significant reliance on PW1’s testimony to substantiate 
proof of the charges against the appellant which could have been 
demolished had a chance of cross-examination been extended; 
and third, PW-2, the only other witness, refused to identify the 
appellant during cross-examination – Further, the Inquiry Officer 
and the respondents 5, 4, and 2 have compromised their ability 
to reach a fair conclusion by considering factors extraneous to the 
evidence and merits of the case, viz., the fact that charge 2 was 
made part of the charge-sheet although the appellant had been 
punished therefor previously – Also, the Inquiry Officer and the 
respondents 5, 4, and 2 have disregarded that the informant, whose 
complaint initiated the disciplinary proceedings, was not made a 
witness – Concerning charge no.3, the charge explicitly states that 
the appellant was arrested on 08.08.1988 – Consequently, it is 
implausible that the appellant could have resumed his duties on the 
same date – Finally, what remains is charge no.4 – Having been 
arrested, the appellant could not have reasonably been expected 
to inform the fact of his arrest till such time he was granted bail – 
The appellant claimed that he requested PW-1 to notify the CID 
authorities of his arrest, but PW-1 failed to do so due to personal 
animosity – This appears to be probable, in the absence of any 
contra-material on record – The disciplinary proceedings had not 
been conducted against the appellant in tune with principles of 
fairness as well as natural justice which severely prejudiced his 
defence – Thus, the impugned order is unsustainable and set 
aside. [Paras 53, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63]
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1930 – R.55 – Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline 
and Appeal) Rules, 1935 – Note 1 attached to Rule 2 – Bihar 
Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) 
Rules, 2005 – Whether due 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.