Patna High Court
Animesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The disciplinary enquiry was vitiated by illegal sub‑delegation, unauthorized charge enlargement, and lack of evidentiary proof, and in light of the petitioner’s criminal acquittal, the punishment order was quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, a Bihar Administrative Service officer, challenged a disciplinary proceeding that imposed censure and withheld three increments on the basis of alleged disproportionate assets. The departmental enquiry was conducted by a Joint Commissioner after the disciplinary authority had appointed a Divisional Commissioner, and the charge was enlarged from Rs. 82.84 lakh to Rs. 1.20 crore without fresh sanction. The enquiry report relied on documentary calculations without examining any witnesses, and the petitioner was denied cross‑examination. The petitioner was later acquitted in a criminal trial on the same allegations. The Court held that the enquiry was illegal due to improper sub‑delegation, unauthorized charge enlargement, and failure to meet evidentiary standards, and that upholding the punishment would be unjust in view of the criminal acquittal. Consequently, the Court quashed the enquiry report, the punishment order, and the review rejection, granting the petitioner all consequential benefits.
Issues considered
- The legality of the sub‑delegation of the departmental enquiry from the appointed Divisional Commissioner to a Joint Commissioner.
- Whether the enlargement of the alleged disproportionate assets figure without fresh sanction vitiates the enquiry.
- Whether the failure to examine witnesses and allow cross‑examination renders the enquiry report a nullity.
- Whether a criminal acquittal on identical charges bars the continuation of disciplinary punishment.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e), 13(2)
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- disproportionate assets
- departmental enquiry
- Article 226
- quashing order
- sub‑delegation
- procedural irregularity
- criminal acquittal
- burden of proof
- major penalty
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10493 of 2024
======================================================
Animesh Kumar S/o Sri Bharat Bhushan Kumar resident of -H 01, Near
Futani Chowk, Officers Colony Mirchaibari, Katihar, Katihar, Bihar, 854105.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sourav Suman, Advocate
Ms. Pragati Patra, Advocate
Mr. Sushant Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Aalekh Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Verma, A.A.G.-3
Dr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, A.C. to AAG-3
Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, A.C. to AAG-3
Mr. Raghwendra Kumar, S.C.-22
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, A.C. to S.C.-22
For the Union of India : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 15-05-2026
The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing
the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the present
petitioner, primarily on the allegation of amassing
disproportionate assets, beyond the known sources of his income
among other allegations, and the consequent punishment of
censure and withholding of three increments with cumulative
effect, imposed to him.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
2/41
2. In this backdrop, the petitioner has invoked
the writ jurisdiction of this Court by way of this petition, inter
alia, praying for the following reliefs -:
“a. To issue appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /
direction(s) in the nature of Certiorari quashing
and setting aside the order dated 24.11.2023
passed vide letter no.21626 (as contained in
Annexure P/110 whereby, punishment of censure
(2016-17) and withholding of three increments
with cumulative effect has been imposed on the
petitioner and further the review (sic) order
passed vide letter no. 4120 dated 07.03.2024
rejecting the Review Application filed by the
petitioner without application of mind in a
mechanical manner. (Annexure-P/14).
b. To issue appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /
direction(s) in the nature of Certiorari setting
aside the entire departmental proceeding
initiated vide Memo No. 8063 dated 04.08.2021
(Annexure-P/7) against the petitioner as the
same is perverse.
c. For quashing the enquiry report of Joint
Commissioner, Departmental Enquiry, Patna,
dated 20.04.2023.
d. To issue appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /
direction(s) in the nature of mandamus directing
the Respondent Authorities to pay all
consequential benefits to the petitioner including
arrears of salary after taking into consideration
all the promotions, increments and pay revisions
as applicable to the petitioner along with
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
3/41
interest thereupon.
e. To pass such order(s) direction(s) for which
petitioner is entitled in the facts and
circumstance of the instant case.”
3. By way of an Interlocutory Application being
I.A. No. 01 of 2025, in light of the subsequent acquittal of the
petitioner, by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, in
Special Vigilance Case No. 45 of 2016 vide his judgment dated
12.06.2025, and also in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar,
reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 890, the petitioner has further
prayed that the impugned order of punishment be declared non
est in law and that he be granted the benefit of General
Administration Department Notification No.19300 dated
13.10.2023 read with Notification No.636 dated 10.01.2024
with retrospective effect, on parity with officers placed below
him in the Bihar Administrative Service Cadre Civil List, 2024.
4. The brief factual matrix relevant for the
present purpose is that the petitioner, Animesh Kumar, is a
member of the Bihar Administrative Service, having joined
service on 08.01.1996 as Deputy Collector. From the year 2014
to 2016, the petitioner was posted as District Transport Officer,
Kaimur (Bhabhua). It is the case of the petitioner, that before the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
4/41
subject disciplinary proceedings regarding the disproportionate
assets, another disciplinary proceeding was initiated on the
allegation of recovery of unaccounted excess amount of money
from a check-post while he was posted as District Transport
Officer, Kaimur (Bhabua).
5. On 16.03.2016, the Vigilance Investigation
Bureau, Patna, conducted simultaneous raids/searches at three
places, namely the residence of the petitioner, his office at
Bhabhua, and the Karmanasha Check Post at Kaimur. In the
aforesaid search/raid, at the Karmanasha Check Post, a cash
amount of approximately Rs. 60,80,450/- was recovered, out of
which an amount approximately about Rs.5,28,000/- was treated
by the Vigilance authorities as unaccounted excess.
6. On the basis of the said recovery of
unaccounted money on 16.03.2016, at the Karmanasha Check
Post, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 41 of 2016 dated 08.04.2016 was
registered under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 read with
Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2),
13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
against eight persons, including the petitioner.
7. In relation to the said Karmanasha matter, the
petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Civil Writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
5/41
Jurisdiction Case No. 19952 of 2016, titled as ‘Animesh
Kumar vs State of Bihar & Ors,’ inter alia praying for audit of
the books of account of the Transport Department at
Bhabhua/Karmanasha Check Post. A Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 07.09.2017 had directed the Transport
Department to examine the prayer of the petitioner for audit and
to conduct such audit as per requirement.
8. Parallel to the criminal case arising out of
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 41 of 2016, a departmental proceeding
bearing No.03 of 2018 was also conducted against the petitioner
by the General Administration Department on the basis of
Resolution/Memo No. 16692, dated 29.12.2017, in relation to
the Karmanasha check-post recovery of unaccounted cash.
Subsequently, the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiry,
General Administration Department vide his order dated
25.05.2018 had recorded his findings in the aforesaid
departmental proceeding and according to the petitioner he was
exonerated thereunder.
9. It is the case of the petitioner, that following
the Karmanasha check-post raid/search, the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau initiated an enquiry into the assets of the
petitioner and vide letter No. 5105 dated 17.08.2016, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
6/41
petitioner was called upon to submit details of his assets and
properties in prescribed Formats I to VI, however, the petitioner
requested the Vigilance Bureau for extension of time to collate
and then submit the documents pertaining to more than twenty
years of his service.
10. On 23.08.2016, the petitioner is stated to
have lodged a written complaint before the Bihar Human Rights
Commission, Patna, against the Vigilance Department and the
Transport Department, complaining, inter alia, of his alleged
illegal detention and harassment at the Bureau headquarters for
over sixty-four hours.
11. It is the case of the petitioner, that the
aforesaid complaint preferred by the petitioner had infuriated the
Vigilance Officials and in retaliation thereof, on 26.08.2016, the
Vigilance Investigation Bureau registered Vigilance P.S. Case
No.82 of 2016 against the petitioner and his wife, under
Sections 109 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code read with
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The First Information Report alleged that
during the check period from 08.01.1996 to June 2016, the
petitioner had acquired assets disproportionate to his known
sources of income to the tune of Rs. 82,84,001/-.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
7/41
12. By letter No. 6450, dated 28.10.2016, the
Transport Department forwarded the details of the Vigilance
case i.e. Vigilance P.S. Case No.82 of 2016 to the General
Administration Department, which is the parent cadre-
controlling department of the petitioner, however, the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau had already forwarded a copy of the First
Information Report to the said Department vide its dated
05.09.2016. Thereafter, the General Administration Department,
vide its letter No. 14296 dated 18.10.2019, sought the
explanation of the petitioner on the allegations of amassing
disproportionate assets among other allegations. The petitioner
submitted his explanation to the aforesaid show cause dated
18.10.2019, by his letter dated 04.11.2019. Thereafter,
pertinently, after lapse of almost five years, the General
Administration Department, upon finding the explanation
submitted by the petitioner to be unsatisfactory, initiated a
departmental proceeding against him vide its impugned
resolution no.8063 dated 04.08.2021, whereby the
Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, was appointed as the
conducting/enquiry officer, and the Vigilance Investigation
Bureau was to nominate a senior officer as the Presenting
Officer.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
8/41
13. The said resolution dated 04.08.2021 framed
five charges against the petitioner in Prapatra-Ka, which were
broadly as under:-
(i) Charge No.1-the registration of F.I.R being
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 82 of 2016 against
the petitioner on the allegation of possession
of disproportionate assets;
(ii) Charge No.2-alleged non-disclosure and
suppression of details about Allahabad Bank
account at Patna and ICICI Bank account at
Dwarka, New Delhi by the petitioner in his
annual asset declaration for the year 2015;
(iii) Charge No.3-alleged non-disclosure and
suppression of details regarding a fixed
deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/-, a DMAT account
holding of Rs.1,81,747/-, and the flat at
Dwarka, New Delhi by the petitioner in his
annual asset declaration for the year 2015;
(iv) Charge No.4-alleged acquisition of assets
disproportionate to known sources of income
to the tune of Rs.82,84,001/- and
(v) Charge No.5-alleged willful non-disclosure
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
9/41
of bank accounts and movable/immovable
properties in the annual asset declaration by
the petitioner, as an act of concealment.
14. The petitioner submitted his reply to the
memo of charge by letter dated 22.10.2021, accompanied by
relevant supporting documents. Parallelly, on 10.08.2022,
during the pendency of the subject departmental proceeding, the
Investigating Officer of Vigilance P.S. Case No.82 of 2016
submitted Charge-Sheet No.41 of 2022 against the petitioner
and his wife in the Court of the learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, Patna in connection with Special Vigilance Case
No.45 of 2016. In the said charge-sheet, the alleged
disproportionate-assets figure was stated to have been
recomputed at Rs.1,20,03,056/-. Thereafter cognizance of the
offences was taken by the learned Special Judge on 03.11.2022.
15. It is the case of the petitioner that in the
subject departmental proceedings, the Presenting Officer had
placed on record the aforesaid charge-sheet being charge-sheet
No. 41 of 2022 and thereafter, the conducting officer proceeded
to enquire into the matter on the basis of the revised figure of
Rs. 1,20,03,056/-, as mentioned in the charge-sheet, without a
fresh sanction by the disciplinary authority and without formal
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
10/41
amendment/modification of the Prapatra-Ka.
16. Upon completion of the enquiry, the report
was submitted by the Joint Commissioner, Departmental
Enquiry, Patna Division, Patna, by his letter dated 20.04.2023.
In the said report, the enquiry officer has found that :-
(i) Charge No.1 does not constitute a
substantive charge as it merely recited the
registration of the FIR;
(ii) Charges No. 2 and 3 not proved;
(iii) Charge No. 4 proved only to the extent of Rs.
19,21,992/- and
(iv) Charge No. 5 partly proved.
17. By letter dated 02.05.2023 and thereafter by
letter dated 29.05.2023, the General Administration Department
issued the second show-cause notice to the petitioner, calling
upon him to submit his representation on the enquiry report and
responding thereto, the petitioner by his written submission
dated 15.06.2023, has raised, inter alia, the following
objections:-
(i) Entrustment and further delegation of the
enquiry to the Joint Commissioner without
statutory authority;
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
11/41
(ii) Enlargement of the charge from Rs.
82,84,001/- to Rs.1,20,03,056/- without
sanction;
(iii) Calculation errors in respect of the DDA Flat
at Dwarka;
(iv) Double-counting in respect of the Tata
Indigo car;
(v) Inclusion of jewellery as expenditure;
(vi) Non-consideration of the Circle Officer,
Harsidhi’s report dated 17.02.2022 (Letter
No. 198) regarding the agricultural income of
the petitioner; and
(vii) Denial of opportunity to cross-examine the
listed oral witnesses.
18. Thereafter, the General Administration
Department consulted the Bihar Public Service Commission
through letter No.14574 dated 31.07.2023 on the proposed
punishment, to which the Bihar Public Service Commission,
vide its letter dated 03.11.2023, agreed with the proposed
punishment and finally, vide impugned resolution dated
24.11.2023, the General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, imposed upon the petitioner the major
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
12/41
penalty of (i) censure for the charge year 2016-17; and (ii)
withholding of three increments with cumulative effect.
19. Prior to the issuance of the aforementioned
punishment order, the petitioner had filed Civil Writ
Jurisdiction Case No. 14365 of 2023, titled as ‘Animesh
Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.’ before this Court,
challenging the enquiry report dated 18.04.2023 and praying for
stay of further proceedings. However, vide order dated
19.03.2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had recorded that
during the pendency of the said writ petition, the order of
punishment had been passed, and accordingly had disposed of
the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ
petition challenging the punishment order.
20. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned
Resolution no. 21626 dated 24.11.2023, the petitioner preferred
a review application dated 23.01.2024 before the General
Administration Department, which came to be rejected by the
impugned Resolution no. 4120 dated 07.03.2024, recording that
the petitioner ought to have raised the issue of witness
examination/cross-examination before the conducting officer
and the penalty imposed by the impugned Resolution no. 21626
dated 24.11.2023 was thereby kept intact.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
13/41
21. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has, at the outset,
submitted that the enquiry report dated 18.04.2023, the
impugned order of punishment dated 24.11.2023 and the
rejection of the review application dated 07.03.2024 are wholly
unsustainable in law, in facts and in procedure.
22. The learned Senior Counsel, has submitted
that the first and most fundamental illegality vitiating the
departmental proceeding lies in its very constitution. By the
Resolution no. 8063 dated 04.08.2021, the disciplinary authority
appointed the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, as the
conducting officer, however, subsequently, by office dated
01.09.2021, the Commissioner, on his own motion, transferred
the enquriy to be conducted by the Joint Commissioner,
Departmental Enquiry, Patna Division, who thereafter conducted
and concluded the entire enquiry.
23. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that
Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, being statutory rules framed
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India,
vests in the disciplinary authority the power to appoint the
enquiry authority. The enquiry authority so appointed is a
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
14/41
statutory functionary entrusted with a quasi-judicial
responsibility. It is settled law that a statutory functionary, in the
absence of an express enabling provision, cannot further sub-
delegate or substitute his statutory function to another officer.
24. Learned Senior Counsel has invited the
attention of this Court to the proviso to Rule 17(2) of the Bihar
CCA Rules, 2005, inserted in the year 2008, which permits a
limited and specified power of transfer only by the Departmental
Enquiry Commissioner to the Additional Departmental Enquiry
Commissioner. Applying the maxim ‘expressio unius est
exclusio alterius’, the rule-making authority must be presumed
to have contemplated this single channel of transfer alone. No
corresponding statutory provision exists to enable a Divisional
Commissioner to transfer an enquiry entrusted to him, to a Joint
Commissioner. In support of his submission, Mr. Santosh
Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, has placed reliance on the well-
settled principle of ‘delegatus non potest delegare’.
25. It is submitted that the defect is not a mere
procedural irregularity. A major-penalty enquiry under the Bihar
CCA Rules is quasi-judicial in nature. The enquiry officer
receives evidence, appreciates documents, evaluates the defence,
and submits findings on charges carrying serious civil
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
15/41
consequences. The appointment of a legally competent enquiry
authority is not an empty formality. If the officer who conducted
the enquiry was not appointed by the disciplinary authority and
had no statutory authority to conduct it, the enquiry report dated
18.04.2023 is a nullity, and the punishment order dated
24.11.2023 and the review rejection dated 07.03.2024, both
founded upon the said enquiry report, are unsustainable and
liable to be quashed.
26. Secondly, Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Senior
Counsel, has submitted that the enquiry is independently vitiated
because the conducting officer departed from the charge
sanctioned by the disciplinary authority and enquired into a new
and enlarged figure of Rs.1,20,03,056/-. The Prapatra-Ka,
sanctioned by the disciplinary authority, alleged disproportionate
assets to the tune of Rs. 82,84,001/-, to which the petitioner
submitted his explanation, specifically on that figure, and the
disciplinary authority initiated the departmental proceeding on
that figure. The conducting officer, however, on the basis of the
Vigilance charge-sheet dated 10.08.2022, proceeded to enquire
into a fresh and enlarged figure of Rs.1,20,03,056/-, without any
sanction of the disciplinary authority and without any
amendment to Prapatra-Ka.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
16/41
27. The learned Senior Counsel has emphasized
that when an enquiry is not confined to the charge framed, then
such an enquiry is fatally vitiated since the charges in the
disciplinary proceeding must be definite, clear and specific so as
to enable the delinquent to properly meet them in his defence. It
is also settled that an enquiry officer cannot travel beyond the
charges framed in the departmental proceeding.
28. It is categorically argued by the learned
Senior Counsel that the petitioner suffered specific and
identifiable prejudice from the said enlargement since he was
never put on notice on the enlarged amount of Rs.1,20,03,056/-
i.e. an additional amount of Rs.37,19,055/- and no fresh
statement of imputations or list of documents were supplied to
him, moreover, no fresh opportunity to explain the additional
figure was afforded.
29. Thirdly, Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Senior
Counsel, has submitted that the enquiry is also vitiated for
violation of Rule 17(14) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 on
account of non-examination of witnesses. It is submitted that the
memo of charge listed Sri Shiv Kumar Jha, Superintendent of
Police, Vigilance, and Sri Akhilendra Kumar Singh, Inspector,
Vigilance, as oral witnesses but, they were not examined as a
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
17/41
witnesses during the enquiry in spite of the repeated request of
the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was denied
opportunity to cross-examine the very witnesses on whose
statements, calculations and materials, the charge were founded.
30. It is vehemently argued by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that in a major-penalty disciplinary
proceeding, the burden of proof lies on the department to prove
the charge against the delinquent and not the delinquent officer.
It is next argued that examination of witnesses is sine qua non
even in ex parte departmental proceedings where a major
penalty is contemplated, failing which the enquiry stands totally
vitiated and non est in the eyes of law. It is argued that the
petitioner had from the very beginning raised the issue of
incorrect computation of the alleged amount specifically
pointing out towards the double counting. It is argued that mere
production of documents is not proof of their contents and that
findings recorded on no evidence are perverse and
unsustainable. Pertinently, it is highlighted by learned Senior
Counsel that the petitioner has consistently disputed the
computation of alleged disproportionate assets.
31. Learned Senior Counsel has emphasized that
the present case is not one in which the charge rests on
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
18/41
undisputed documents. The very foundation of the charge, that
is, the Vigilance computation of disproportionate assets, was
contested by the petitioner from the first instance. Whether a
particular bank entry is income or expenditure, whether a
particular asset was counted once or twice, whether a particular
item was acquired by purchase or received as gift, whether
agricultural income should be measured on the basis of the
income tax returns of the petitioner or on the basis of the report
of the Circle Officer. It is argued that each of these is a question
that could only have been resolved through examination and
cross-examination of the witnesses in the enquiry. The
Investigating Officer’s computation was not a fact; it was an
opinion, and an opinion that the petitioner was entitled to test.
32. In support of this submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following
decisions:-
(i) State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha
reported as (2010) 2 SCC 772;
(ii) Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank
reported as (2009) 2 SCC 570 and
(iii Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police
& Ors. reported as (1999) 2 SCC 10.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
19/41
33. Fourthly, the learned Senior Counsel, has
submitted that the residual finding of disproportionate assets of
Rs.19,21,992/- by the conducting officer is patently wrong since
the Investigating Officer has himself admitted the omission and
in his counter affidavit filed in Cr.W.J.C. No.458 of 2023 titled
as ‘Animesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors.’ he had
categorically admitted that the amount of Rs.36,00,000/- of sale
consideration of the DDA Flat, Dwarka was counted twice, as a
consequence, it is argued that the petitioner is left with a surplus
legitimate income of Rs. 16,78,008/-.
34. Learned Senior Counsel has further
submitted that, even apart from the aforesaid infirmity relating
to the DDA flat, there are other infirmities, each supported by
the record, such as, the value of the Tata Indigo car has been
counted twice, the value of the jewellery of the wife of the
petitioner, which is her stridhan and has been counted as an
expenditure and the agricultural income of the petitioner which
was calculated in contravention with the report of the Circle
Officer. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that the computation of the alleged
disproportionate asset is wholly wrong and the residual amount
for which the petitioner was found guilty is neither borne out of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
20/41
record nor supported by witnesses.
35. Fifthly, it the submission of the learned
Senior counsel for the petitioner that Charge No. 5, being the
omnibus charge of willful non-disclosure of bank accounts and
movable/immovable properties in the annual assets declaration
was found by the conducting officer to be only ‘partly proved’,
and was expressly stated to derive from the partial proof of
Charge No. 4. It is categorically pointed by the learned Seniro
Counsel that Charges No. 2 and 3 which were the specific
charges of non-disclosure of bank accounts, DMAT account and
the Dwarka flat, were held by the inquiry officer himself to be
not proved. It is further submitted that once Charges No. 2 and 3
have failed, and once Charge No. 4 is rendered arithmetically
untenable, Charge No. 5 being the derivative and not
independent has no factual content of its own and cannot
independently sustain the punishment. The disciplinary authority
has, in its impugned order, recorded no independent finding
identifying what particular asset, account or property remained
‘concealed’ after the dismissal of Charges No. 2 and 3.
36. Sixthly, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner has lastly vehemently argued that the acquittal of the
petitioner by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
21/41
Special Vigilance Case No. 45 of 2016 by judgment dated
12.06.2025, has rendered the impugned order of punishment as
non est since the acquittal was rendered on the same charge
sheet, the same documentary record, the same witnesses and the
very same Vigilance computation that underlies the impugned
disciplinary penalty. It is pertinently pointed by the learned
Senior Counsel that the learned Special Judge, had even
adverted to the calculation error in the disproportionate asset.
37. The learned senior counsel has argued that
the acquittal of the petitioner was not on technical grounds but
after appreciation of evidence, the prosecution had failed to
prove the charges and as such the petitioner was honorably
acquitted. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn
strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar, reported as
2025 SCC OnLine SC 890, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that where the charges, evidence and witnesses in the
departmental and criminal proceedings are identical or
substantially similar, and the accused is acquitted by the
criminal court, it would be unjust and oppressive to sustain
disciplinary punishment arising from the same facts. Further
reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
22/41
Court in the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 and G.M. Tank v. State of
Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446.
38. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate
General-3, appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Bihar,
has submitted that the present writ petition is wholly devoid of
merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the
petitioner, in substance, invites this Court to undertake an
appellate re-appreciation of evidence, to re-cast the
disproportionate-assets computation, and to substitute its own
conclusion for that of the disciplinary authority an exercise
which is impermissible in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
39. Learned senior counsel for the State has, at
the outset, invited attention to the well-settled position
governing the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It
is argued that the High Court is not an appellate forum over the
findings of the enquiry officer and can only interfere with the
findings of the enquiry officer unless the same is found to be
perverse. The learned Senior Counsel for the State has submitted
that the disciplinary action was initiated on grave allegations of
acquisition of assets disproportionate to known sources of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
23/41
income and non-disclosure of bank accounts and properties in
the annual asset declartion of the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the petitioner, being a senior officer of the Bihar
Administrative Service, is duty-bound under Rule 3 of the Bihar
Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976, to maintain an
absolute integrity, devotion to duty and complete transparency in
his property and financial disclosures.
40. It is submitted that the disciplinary
proceeding was not arbitrary or sudden and it was initiated and
carried out in strict adherence to the Bihar CCA Rules after
affording ample and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.
Further, refuting the contention of the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner regarding sub-delegation of the enquiry by the
Commissioner, Patna Division to the Joint Commissioner, Patna
Division, the learned Senior Counsel for the State has submitted
that the entrustment of the enquiry to the Joint Commissioner,
Departmental Enquiry, Patna Division, was made in lawful
exercise of the power conferred under the notification dated
15.12.2011 issued by the General Administration Department
vide Letter No. 13655. It is submitted that under the said
notification it has been provided that where the Divisional
Commissioner has been appointed as enquiry officer, he may
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
24/41
transfer the enquiry to the Additional Collector, Departmental
Enquiry, who may directly submit the records and report to the
disciplinary authority. The Joint Commissioner is a senior
administrative officer specifically posted for the conduct of
departmental enquiries and he is adequately equipped to
discharge the function and further no prejudice has been shown
by the petitioner merely because the enquiry was conducted by
the Joint Commissioner rather than by the Divisional
Commissioner personally.
41. It is next submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel that the contention of the petitioner regarding alteration
of charge is totally misconceived, since the substance of the
charge is acquisition of disproportionate assets and concealment
of bank accounts and properties by the petitioner which has
remained unchanged.
42. Further, replying to the contention regarding
denial of cross-examination, it has been submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel for the State that the enquiry was
conducted in accordance with law and in accordance with Rule
17(14) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The case substantially
rested upon documentary evidence i.e. bank statements, annual
property returns, sale and purchase deeds, income and
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
25/41
expenditure records, and the materials collected by the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau.
43. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for
the State that Charge No. 5 cannot be treated as wholly
derivative of Charges No. 2 and 3 and Charge No. 5 was framed
in respect of the overall conduct of the petitioner in his annual
asset declaration. It is submitted that even if certain limbs of
Charges No. 2 and 3 were not proved, the finding of the enquiry
officer that the overall asset declaration of the petitioner was
deficient and that he had failed to maintain the standard of
integrity required by Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules, 1976, is
independently sustainable.
44. Further the impugned order of punishment
was passed after duly considering the enquiry report and the
detailed representation submitted by the petitioner and further
after concurrence from the Bihar Public Service Commission. It
is the categorical submission for the learned senior counsel for
the State that acquittal in the criminal proceeding does not, as a
matter of law, automatically invalidate the departmental
punishment, the two proceedings operate in different fields and
the standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond
reasonable doubt whereas in a departmental enquiry the standard
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
26/41
is preponderance of probabilities.
45. It is emphasised that the departmental
proceeding in the present case culminated in punishment as far
back as 24.11.2023 and the review was rejected on 07.03.2024.
It is pointed out that the criminal acquittal of the petitioner came
much later i.e. on 12.06.2025. It is argued that a subsequent
acquittal cannot retrospectively invalidate a duly conducted
departmental proceeding. It is lastly submitted that the
disciplinary authority after considering the materials on record
had adopted a calibrated approach and imposed a reasonable
punishment of censure for the charge year as well as
withholding three increments with cumulative effect.
46. I have considered the submission of the
parties and have perused the materials available on record.
47. The genesis of the present subject
disciplinary proceeding lies in the registration of the Vigilance
P.S. Case No.82 of 2016 on the allegation of disproportionate
assets possessed by the petitioner beyond the known source of
his income. Pertinently, the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid
Vigilance Case No.82 of 2016 had submitted a charge-sheet
which was relied upon by the enquiry officer and the original
alleged amount was enhanced to Rs.1,20,03,056/-. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
27/41
petitioner in his response had ab intio taken a categorical
objection regarding the computation of the amount and
thereafter, also to the amount for which he was finally found
guilty i.e. for an amount of Rs.19,21,992/-.
48. From the perusal of the records of the case,
the central limb on which the case of the petitioner stands is the
computational discrepancies in the calculation of the alleged
disproportionate assets of the petitioner. However, from the
perusal of the enquiry report, it appears that no cogent material
has been placed on record, which had been proved in the
enquiry proceeding to arrive at a figure of disproportionate
assets against the petitioner. The memo of charge records the list
of witnesses, however, none of the witnesses were examined
during the course of enquiry. As such, not only the petitioner
was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
but also the documents relied in the disciplinary proceeding
were never proved by the witnesses. This Court is mindful of the
fact that the background of the present case remains the
allegation of possession of disproportionate asset by the
petitioner and, as such, the arithmetical calculation of the figures
and the inferences drawn therefrom assumes greater
significance. As such, the present case, cannot be classified as
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
28/41
one entirely borne out of admitted documentary evidence,
particularly, when the petitioner had disputed and challenged the
calculation at every step of the way and particularly, before the
enquiry officer.
49. The Supreme Court in the case of Roop
Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank reported as (2009) 2 SCC
570 held as follows:
“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a
quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer
performs a quasi-judicial function. The
charges levelled against the delinquent officer
must be found to have been proved. The
enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding
upon taking into consideration the materials
brought on record by the parties. The
purported evidence collected during
investigation by the investigating officer
against all the accused by itself could not be
treated to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to prove
the said documents. The management
witnesses merely tendered the documents and
did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance,
inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on
the FIR which could not have been treated as
evidence.”
50. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
29/41
case of Devendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar (decided on
19.10.2023 in L.P.A. No. 1302 of 2017), has held as under:-
“7. As has been held in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab
National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, the
documents produced in a departmental inquiry
has to be proved by examining witnesses. Even
an F.I.R. was held to be not evidence by itself
without actual proof of facts stated therein.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also held that
even an admission or confession to the police
itself is not sufficient to find the delinquent
employee guilty in a departmental proceeding
if no evidence is brought on record to prove
the offence or misconduct alleged.
Departmental inquiry was held to be a quasi-
judicial proceeding and the inquiry officer
functions in the status of a quasi-judicial
authority. Not only should evidence be led in a
departmental inquiry, the conclusions arrived
at should be based on evidence which brings
forth a probability that the delinquent has
committed the misconduct alleged and
charged against him. No inquiry report based
on conjectures and surmises can be sustained
and even in a departmental inquiry, the
standard of proof is not a mere suspicion.
However high the degree of suspicion is, it
cannot be a substitute for legal proof.”
51. From the afore-quoted decisions, it becomes
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
30/41
patently clear that mere production of a document or a
calculation chart, in case of disproportionate assets case, does
not prove by itself and must be proved on the threshold of
preponderance of possibilities before arriving at a finding of
guilt. This Court has also noted that the disciplinary proceeding
was initiated based on the institution of the Vigilance P.S. Case
No.82 of 2016. It is settled law that mere production of a
document does not constitute proof thereof, if the memo of
charge is issued on the basis of the complaint, the author of the
aforesaid complaint must be produced in order to prove the
contents thereof as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Limited vs.
Worksmen & Ors. reported as 1971 2 SCC 617.
52. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the enquiry officer has failed to examine the witnesses
despite the fact that the petitioner had disputed the calculation of
the alleged disproportionate assets. The charge of
disproportionate assets is inherently a matter of correct
arithmetic calculation, which ought to be proved on the
threshold of preponderance of possibilities by the respondents
and a mere production of calculation charts and statements could
not suffice. A document or a calculation cannot prove by itself,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
31/41
in case of an allegation of disproportionate asset, since
inferences have to be drawn regarding the correct calculation. In
the present case, the petitioner has not only disputed the
correctness of the calculation but to a limited extent the
respondents have themselves have admitted and corrected the
calculation, however, neither the final calculation has been made
error free nor the calculation has been proved by leading
evidences and examining witnesses in support thereof. This
omission in the enquiry become fatal owing to the material
discrepancies of double counting, miscalculation and
unsupported valuation but also more importantly, on account of
non-examination of witnesses in support of the calculation and
this goes to the very root of the allegation, thereby vitiating the
enquiry report and the consequential order of punishment.
53. The enquiry officer has arrived at a finding
of guilt regarding disproportionate assets, to the limited extent
of Rs.19,21,992/- against the petitioner, however, it is
inescapable that none of the witnesses have been examined
before drawing inference on the entries in the accounts, which
assumes even more significance considering the admitted
position that certain discrepancies had indeed crept in the
calculation for disproportionate assets. Therefore, the enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
32/41
proceedings stand vitiated on the score of being one of no
evidence since the calculation matrix was never proved by
witnesses.
54. Since this Court has already found that the
enquiry proceeding to be vitiated and being a case of no
evidence, this Court deems it appropriate not to enter into other
submissions raising questions about the jurisdictional
competence of the Joint Commissioner, who had held and
concluded enquiry.
55. Moreover, the learned Special Judge,
Vigilance Court, Patna after duly appreciating the evidence on
record including the depositions of the prosecution witnesses
therein had arrived at a categorical finding, that the prosecution
had failed to prove the charge against the petitioner and
accordingly, acquitted him honourably of all the charges levelled
against him. It is important to note that for the present purpose
the charges in both the disciplinary as well as criminal case were
one and the same including the materials before the disciplinary
authority as well as the learned Special Judge. This Court has
noted that the learned Special Judge vide his judgment dated
12.06.2025 had adverted to the inconsistencies in the calculation
of the alleged disproportionate assets and thereafter recorded his
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
33/41
finding of acquittal.
56. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported as (2024) 1 SCC 175
has held as under:-
“Legal position
10. We have examined both the questions
independently. We are conscious of the fact
that a writ court's power to review the order of
the disciplinary authority is very limited. The
scope of enquiry is only to examine whether
the decision-making process is legitimate. (See
SBI v. A.G.D. Reddy (2023) 14 SCC 391. As
part of that exercise, the courts exercising
power of judicial review are entitled to
consider whether the findings of the
disciplinary authority have ignored material
evidence and if it so finds, the courts are not
powerless to interfere. (See United Bank of
India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee (2022) 13
SCC 329.
11. We are also conscious of the fact that mere
acquittal by a criminal court will not confer on
the employee a right to claim any benefit,
including reinstatement. (See State of T.N. v. S.
Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598.
12. However, if the charges in the departmental
enquiry and the criminal court are identical
or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and
circumstances are one and the same, then the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
34/41
matter acquires a different dimension. If the
Court in judicial review concludes that the
acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after
full consideration of the prosecution evidence
and that the prosecution miserably failed to
prove the charge, the Court in judicial review
can grant redress in certain circumstances.
The Court will be entitled to exercise its
discretion and grant relief, if it concludes
that allowing the findings in the disciplinary
proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair
and oppressive. Each case will turn on its own
facts. (See G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat
(2006) 5 SCC 446, State Bank of Hyderabad v.
P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 and S.
Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598.
xxxx
Effect of acquittal in the criminal proceeding
— Question 2
25. With this above background, if we examine the
criminal proceedings the following factual
position emerges. The very same witnesses,
who were examined in the departmental
enquiry were examined in the criminal trial.
Jagdish Chandra, Bhawani Singh, Shravan
Lal, Raj Singh and Karan Sharma were
examined as PW 2, PW 3, PW 6, PW 9 and
PW 13 respectively at the criminal trial. Apart
from them, eight other witnesses were also
examined. The gravamen of the charge in the
criminal case was that the appellant had
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
35/41
submitted an application for recruitment along
with his marksheet and he, by making
alteration in his date of birth to reflect the
same as 24-4-1972 in place of 21-4-1974, and
obtained recruitment to the post of Constable.
26. Though the trial court convicted the appellant
under Section 420 IPC, the appellate court
recorded the following crucial findings while
acquitting the appellant:“…Mainly the present
case was based on the documents to this effect
whether the date of birth of accused is 21-4-
1972 or 21-4-1974. Ext. P-3 is original
marksheet, in which, the date of birth of
accused has been shown as 21-4-1972 and
same has also been proved by the witnesses
examined on behalf of the
prosecution.Whatever the documents have
been produced before the court regarding the
date of birth of 21-4-1974 are either the letters
of Principal or are duplicate TC or
marksheets. Neither the prosecution has
produced any such original documents in the
subordinate court to this effect that when the
admission form of accused was filled, what
date of birth was mentioned by the accused in
it, what was the date of birth in Roll Register
of School, what date of birth was mentioned by
accused in the examination form of Secondary,
and nor after bringing the original records
from the witnesses concerned, same were got
proved in the evidence. In these circumstances,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
36/41
this fact becomes doubtful that date of birth of
the accused was 21-4-1974, and the accused is
entitled to receive its benefit. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the conviction made by
the learned subordinate court merely on the
basis of oral evidence and letters or duplicate
documents, is not just and proper. It is
justifiable to acquit the accused. Resultantly,
on the basis of aforesaid consideration, the
present appeal filed by the appellant-accused
is liable to be allowed.”(emphasis supplied)
27. What is important to notice is that the
Appellate Judge has clearly recorded that in
the document Ext. P-3 — original marksheet
of the 8th standard, the date of birth was
clearly shown as 21-4-1972 and the other
documents produced by the prosecution were
either letters or a duplicate marksheet. No
doubt, the Appellate Judge says that it
becomes doubtful whether the date of birth
was 21-4-1974 and that the accused was
entitled to receive its benefit. However, what
we are supposed to see is the substance of the
judgment. A reading of the entire judgment
clearly indicates that the appellant was
acquitted after full consideration of the
prosecution evidence and after noticing that
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
the charge (see S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC
598.
28. Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
37/41
“honourably acquitted”, used in judgments
are not to be understood as magic
incantations. A court of law will not be carried
away by the mere use of such terminology. In
the present case, the Appellate Judge has
recorded that Ext. P-3, the original marksheet
carries the date of birth as 21-4-1972 and the
same has also been proved by the witnesses
examined on behalf of the prosecution. The
conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal
proceeding was after full consideration of the
prosecution evidence and that the prosecution
miserably failed to prove the charge can only
be arrived at after a reading of the judgment
in its entirety. The Court in judicial review is
obliged to examine the substance of the
judgment and not go by the form of expression
used.
29. We are satisfied that the findings of the
Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly
indicate that the charge against the appellant
was not just, “not proved” — in fact the
charge even stood “disproved” by the very
prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a
fact is said to be “disproved” when, after
considering the matters before it, the court
either believes that it does not exist or
considers its non-existence so probable that a
prudent man ought, under the circumstances
of the particular case, to act upon the
supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
38/41
to be “not proved” when it is neither
“proved” nor “disproved” (see Vijayee Singh
v. State of U.P. (1990) 3 SCC 190.
30. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of
the finding of the Appellate Judge, the
disciplinary proceedings and the orders
passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand.
The charges were not just similar but identical
and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances
were all the same. This is a case where in
exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders
of the disciplinary authority and the appellate
authority as allowing them to stand will be
unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very
similar to the situation that arose in G.M. Tank
(2006) 5 SCC 446.
31. Apart from the above, one other aspect is to be
noted. The enquiry officer's report makes a
reference to the appellant passing 10th
standard, and to a 10th standard marksheet
exhibited as Ext. P-4 referring to the date of
birth as 24-7-1974. Jagdish Chandra PW 1 (in
the departmental enquiry) clearly deposed that
since the appellant was regularly absent from
Class 10, his name was struck off and he did
not even pass 10th standard. The appellant has
also come out with this version before the
disciplinary authority, stating that the 10th
class certificate of Ram Lal produced before
the enquiry officer, is of some other Ram Lal.
32. This issue need not detain us any further
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
39/41
because it is not the case of the department
that the appellant sought employment based
on 10th standard marksheet. It is their positive
case that the appellant sought employment on
the basis of his 8th standard marksheet.
Shravan Lal, PW 4 in the departmental
enquiry had also furnished the 10th standard
marksheet procured from the Secondary
Education Board, Ajmer. In cross-examination,
on being asked, he admitted that the appellant
was recruited on the basis of 8 th standard
marksheet, and he admitted that there was no
alteration in the 8th standard marksheet.
33. In view of the above, we declare that the order
of termination dated 31-3-2004; the order of
the appellate authority dated 8-10-2004; the
orders dated 29-3-2008 and 25-6-2008
refusing to reconsider and review the penalty
respectively, are all illegal and untenable.
34. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of DB
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 484 of 2011 dated 5-
9-2018 [Ram Lal Choudhary v. State of
Rajasthan, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 3031]. We
direct that the appellant shall be reinstated
with all consequential benefits including
seniority, notional promotions, fitment of
salary and all other benefits. As far as back
wages are concerned, we are inclined to
award the appellant 50% of the back wages.
The directions be complied with within a
period of four weeks from today.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
40/41
57. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Maharana Pratap Singh (supra) has held as under:-
“47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not
automatically entitle the accused to have an
order of setting aside of his dismissal from
public service following disciplinary
proceedings, it is well-established that when
the charges, evidence, witnesses, and
circumstances in both the departmental
inquiry and the criminal proceedings are
identical or substantially similar, the situation
assumes a different context. In such cases,
upholding the findings in the disciplinary
proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and
oppressive. This is a position settled by the
decision in G. M. Tank (supra), since
reinforced by a decision of recent origin in
Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2024) 1 SCC
175”
58. In the present case, it appears that the
charges, evidence, witness and the circumstances in both the
departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding are
identical and therefore, the findings in the disciplinary
proceeding would become further unsustainable in view of
honourable acquittal of the present petitioner in the criminal
case since the learned Special Judge, has on merits found that no
offence could be established against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10493 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
41/41
59. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition
is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned enquiry report of the
Joint Commissioner dated 20.04.2023, the consequent impugned
order of punishment dated 24.11.2023 as well as the order of the
reviewing authority dated 07.03.2024, are hereby quashed and
set aside. As a consequence, the petitioner shall be entitled to all
the consequential benefits, including his consideration for any
higher post or designation, in accordance with law.
60. Pending interlocutory application(s), stand
disposed of.
61. The parties are directed to act upon the web
copy of this judgment in accordance with law.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 18.03.2026
Uploading Date 18.05.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.