“Presumption of Prejudice”: Supreme Court Establishes Adverse Inference Rule for Withheld Departmental Records in Disciplinary Proceedings

1. Introduction

In Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2025 INSC 554) the Supreme Court of India (“SCI”) reiterated and sharpened the principles of natural justice in departmental inquiries. Centrally, the Court held that where the State fails to produce the original disciplinary record despite a specific judicial direction, the Court is entitled to (i) draw an adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, and (ii) treat the disciplinary enquiry as vitiated. This judgment simultaneously emphasises (a) the constitutional need for transparency in disciplinary proceedings, (b) the requirement of a specific, unambiguous charge-sheet, and (c) the impermissibility of denying the delinquent officer the right to cross-examine a material witness.

The ruling not only reinstates the importance of procedure in a departmental context but also introduces a concrete remedy: lump-sum monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement where long passage of time makes reinstatement impracticable. The decision is poised to influence disciplinary jurisprudence across India, particularly in cases where departments attempt to shield defective enquiries from judicial scrutiny by suppressing the record.

2. Factual Backdrop

Parties: Appellant – Maharana Pratap Singh, a CID Constable; Respondents – State of Bihar & senior police authorities.
Events: An extortion FIR (Kotwali P.S. Case No. 882/1988) led to Singh’s arrest on 08-08-1988; he was simultaneously suspended. Four departmental charges followed, including extortion and impersonation (Charge 1 & 2) and failure to re-join/inform duty (Charges 3 & 4).
Procedural history:
- 1995 – Inquiry Officer (I.O.) found Singh guilty; 1996 – Superintendent of Police dismissed him; 1997 & 2003 – departmental appeal & revision failed.
- 2013 – Single Judge quashed dismissal, ordered reinstatement with benefits.
- 2016 – Division Bench reversed Single Judge, restored dismissal.
- 2025 – Supreme Court allowed Singh’s appeal, set aside dismissal, awarded ₹30 lakh compensation plus ₹5 lakh costs.

3. Summary of the Judgment

The SCI (Dipankar Datta & Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.) held:

Breach of Natural Justice: Charges were vague; opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 was effectively denied; the informant (complainant) was never examined.
Withholding of Departmental File: Despite a Supreme Court order, the State failed to produce the inquiry records. Applying Section 114(g) Evidence Act, the Court inferred that the records would have favoured the employee.
Parallel Criminal Acquittal: Since the criminal case and departmental enquiry were based on substantially identical allegations, Singh’s honourable acquittal rendered the departmental finding on Charge 1 unsustainable (G.M. Tank applied).
Relief: Reinstatement was impracticable (Singh aged ~74); Court awarded ₹30 lakh lump-sum inclusive of retiral dues + ₹5 lakh costs.

4. In-Depth Analysis

4.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat (2006) – When criminal acquittal is on merits and facts are identical, departmental punishment cannot stand.
Sawai Singh v. State Of Rajasthan (1986) – Vague charges violate Rule 55 of the 1930 CCA Rules; relied upon to invalidate the charge-sheet.
Union of India v. H.C. Goel (1964 – Const. Bench) – Suspicion cannot replace proof in domestic enquiries; emphasised need for legal evidence.
Surath Chandra Chakrabarty (1970) – Charge must be specific; otherwise entire enquiry vitiated.
Section 114(g) Evidence Act & State (Karri Surya Sankaram) (2006) – Courts may presume withheld evidence would be adverse to the party suppressing it; cornerstone for adverse inference here.

4.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

Applicability of 1935 & 1930 Rules: Being a non-gazetted constable, Bihar & Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1935 read with CCA Rules 1930 applied. Rule 55 requires specific charges + witness cross-examination.
Vagueness of Charges: The four charges lacked particulars, violating Rule 55 – enquiry void ab initio.
Right to Cross-Examine: Denial of cross-examining PW-1 was fatal; Court rejected State’s shifting stance that Singh “chose not” to cross-examine.
Adverse Inference for Withheld Record: Non-production of the departmental file, despite Supreme Court’s order, attracted a presumption that the file contained material favourable to Singh.
Parity with Criminal Proceedings: Charge 1 mirrored the criminal indictment; criminal court acquitted on merits – ergo departmental finding unsustainable (Tank principle).
Charge-wise Findings:
- Charge 1 – collapses with criminal acquittal & tainted evidence.
- Charge 2 – earlier punished (double jeopardy concerns); anyway enquiry bad.
- Charges 3 & 4 – derivative and factually untenable (arrest prevented duty / intimation).
Quantum of Relief: Given 37-year lapse since incident and approaching Superannuation, reinstatement futile; lump-sum compensation decreed as “complete justice”.

4.3 Impact of the Decision

Transparency Mandate: Public authorities must produce enquiry records once summoned; failure will likely doom the disciplinary action.
Natural Justice Standard Tightened: Vague charge-sheets and denial of cross-examination are no longer curable defects; they render the proceedings void.
Compensation Jurisprudence: Reaffirms Court’s power to award monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement when passage of time makes reinstatement unrealistic.
Police & Uniformed Services: Even “disciplined forces” are entitled to full panoply of natural justice; departmental convenience cannot override fairness.
Administrative Discipline: Departments may need to revisit standing orders to ensure: detailed charge-sheets, meticulous witness handling, prompt record preservation, and readiness to disclose files in court.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

Adverse Inference (Evidence Act §114(g)): If a party suppresses evidence that is in its possession, the court may presume that the evidence would go against that party.
Charge-Sheet Vagueness: Charges must specify “who, what, when, where, how”. Absence of particulars deprives the employee of meaningful defence and violates natural justice.
Domestic / Departmental Enquiry: An internal fact-finding process under service rules to determine misconduct. It is not a criminal trial but must follow minimum fair-play standards: notice of charges, opportunity to present defence, cross-examination, reasoned findings.
Double Jeopardy in Service Law: The principle that an employee cannot be punished twice for the same misconduct. Earlier punishment, if on record, cannot be resurrected unless rules allow consideration only for scaling up penalty and after due notice.
Lump-Sum Compensation in Service Disputes: Monetary award granted when reinstatement is either impossible (organisation dissolved) or inequitable (large time-gap, superannuation). A remedial, not punitive, measure.

6. Conclusion

Maharana Pratap Singh crystallises a vital procedural safeguard: withholding disciplinary records invites an automatic presumption of prejudice. Coupled with the insistence on precise charges and a genuine right of cross-examination, the judgment fortifies employee rights without diluting managerial authority. The Court’s balanced remedy—setting aside the dismissal yet opting for compensation—demonstrates pragmatic jurisprudence sensitive to time-lapse realities. Going forward, public employers must internalise the decision: transparency, record preservation, and strict adherence to natural justice are not optional—they are constitutional imperatives.