Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The disciplinary authority’s failure to record reasons for disagreement violated Rule 18(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, rendering the show‑cause order and all subsequent orders bad in law.
Summary
Manoj Kumar Yadav, a police constable, was dismissed from service after a departmental proceeding despite being acquitted in a criminal case and exonerated by the enquiry officer. He challenged the dismissal, the appellate rejection of his appeal, and the denial of his memorial before the Director General of Police, alleging violations of natural justice and the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The High Court examined whether the disciplinary authority complied with Rule 18(2) which requires recording reasons for any disagreement with the enquiry report. It found that the show‑cause notice failed to record such reasons, constituting a gross violation of the rule. Consequently, the court held the show‑cause order and all subsequent dismissal, appellate, and memorial orders to be bad in law. The petition was allowed, the orders set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.
Issues considered
- Did the disciplinary authority’s show‑cause order comply with Rule 18(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 requiring reasons for disagreement?
- Is the dismissal order bad in law due to the procedural defect in the show‑cause notice?
- Are the appellate and memorial orders also bad in law as they stem from the defective disciplinary order?
- Is the petitioner entitled to reinstatement and payment of consequential benefits?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- natural justice
- Rule 18(2)
- Bihar CCA Rules
- service reinstatement
- writ petition
- civil writ jurisdiction
- police service disciplinary
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10839 of 2024
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Yadav son of Late Balbachan Yadav, resident of Village-
Dhamar, P.S.-Ara Muffasil, District-Bhojpur Ara.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Sahabad Region, Sahabad, District
Bhojpur.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Sahabad Range, Dehari-on-Sone,
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar, District-Buxar.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, District-Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kr. Jha, Advocate
Mr. Sarveshwar Tiwary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Government Advocate 7
Mr. Abhinav Ashok, (AC to GA-7)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
issuance of an appropriate writ/writs and order/orders in the
nature of certiorari for the following relief/s:-
“I. For quashing the order bearing
Buxar district Order No.342/23
issued vide Memo No. 996 dated
25.03.2023 under the signature of
Superintendent of Police, Buxar
(Respondent No.5) by which the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10839 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
2/10
Respondent No.5 i.e. Superintendent
of Police has passed dismissal order
against the petitioner without
considering the fact that the
petitioner was exonerated by
conducting officer in its report when
the Departmental proceeding was
initiated on the basis of criminal case
against the petitioner. The order of
dismissal is passed by Respondent
No.5 against the petitioner is totally
arbitrary, against the Principle of
Natural Justice as enumerated under
Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 and fit to
be set aside.
II. For quashing of the appellate
order bearing Buxar district Order
No. 919/2023 passed by Deputy
Inspector General of Police,
Sahabad Range, Dehari-on-Sone
(Respondent No.4) issued vide Letter
No. 1765 dated 09.06.2023
communicated to Superintendent of
Police, Buxar and Superintendent of
Police, Buxar issued vide Memo
No.2569 dated 09.08.2023 to the
petitioner by which the appeal of the
petitioner was rejected by
Respondent No.4 in most mechanical
way without considering the points
Patna High Court CWJC No.10839 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
3/10
raised in the memo of appeal and as
much as the law in this regard.
III. For quashing of the Memorial
order Memo No. 2057 dated
18.06.2024 issued and
communicated from the office of
Superintendent of Police, Buxar
passed by Respondent No.2, by
which the memorial application filed
by the petitioner has been rejected by
Respondent No.2 without considering
facts and law.
IV. For issuance of an appropriate
writ/writs and order/orders in the
nature of mandamus for directing
and commanding the respondents
that for setting aside the orders of
dismissal as well as appellate orders
and memorial orders, restore the
service of the petitioner with all legal
consequential and financial benefits
to the petitioner for the ends of
justice and equity.
V. Further for any other relief or
reliefs for which the petitioner is
entitled in the facts and
circumstances of this case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.10839 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
4/10
the petitioner was a Police Constable when he was posted as a
member of Riot Control, Kewati House No. 1061 force, with a
view to control the riot. The petitioner was leaving in a girls
middle school, Bikramganj, Rohtas. On the complaint of Head
Master of the school, FIR has been lodged bearing Bikramganj
P.S. Case No. 534 of 2019 lodged under I.P.C as well as POCSO
Act. Counsel submits that after lodging of the said FIR, the
petitioner was taken into custody and suspended from the
service. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on bail and then
transferred and directed to join in the district of Buxar. Counsel
further submits that subsequently, due to the reason that a
criminal case was pending against the petitioner and he was sent
into custody, a departmental proceeding No. 60 of 2020 was
initiated against the petitioner and a memo of charge has been
served upon him vide letter dated 14.10.2020. Counsel further
submits that by virtue of the said charge, a full fledged
departmental proceeding has been conducted against the
petitioner. The departmental proceeding was initiated, but in the
meantime, the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case
vide order dated 07.01.2022 by the Special Court. Counsel
submits that after thorough enquiry, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report on 28.03.2022 exonerating the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.10839 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
5/10
from all the charges and found him innocent. Counsel further
submits that the Disciplinary Authority disagrees from the said
enquiry report and issued a show cause dated 29.01.2023 and
given 15 days time to submit his second show cause. Counsel
submits that the reply to second show cause was filed, but even
then, the punishment order has been passed bearing Buxar
District Order No. 342/2023 contained in Memo No. 996 dated
25.03.2023 (Annexure-P/8), by which the petitioner was
dismissed from the service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner, thereafter, preferred appeal against
the order of punishment, but the D.I.G., Sahabad Range
(Respondent no.4) has rejected his appeal bearing Buxar District
Order No. 919/2023 contained in Memo No. 2569 dated
09.08.2023 (Annexure-P/10). Counsel submits that thereafter,
the petitioner filed a memorial before the Director General of
Police, Bihar, Patna dated 05.09.2023. But, the said memorial
was also rejected bearing Buxar District Order No. 764/2024
contained in Memo No. 2057 dated 18.06.2024 (Annexure-
P/12). Counsel, therefore, submits that the order of the
Disciplinary Authority, order of the Appellate Authority and the
order passed in memorial, all are absolutely bad in law, due to
Patna High Court CWJC No.10839 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
6/10
the reason that the Disciplinary Authority has issued a show
cause (Annexure-6) dated 29.01.2023 disagreeing from the
enquiry report which is in gross violation of Rule 18(2) of the
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal)
Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bihar CCA Rules,
2005’). Counsel further submits that since, the order passed
under Rule 18(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 is absolutely
not in accordance with law and in violation of the said rule,
thereafter, every subsequent order shall also be bad in law. He
submits that all the orders impugned in the writ petition are bad
in law and be set aside and the petitioner be directed to join his
services and also be entitled for all the consequential benefits.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that
the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed. He submits that
the proper opportunity has been provided to the petitioner,
charge memo issued and the departmental proceeding
conducted. He further submits that according to Bihar CCA
Rules, 2005, it is well within the power of the Disciplinary
Authority that he may differ from the report of the Enquiry
Officer and therefore, he disagrees from the said report and
issued a disagreement memo also followed by opportunity of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10839 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
7/10
show cause and passed the disciplinary order which was tested
by the Appellate Authority and subsequently in memorial by the
Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, and all were found this
correct. Therefore, there is no need of any interference in this
matter. He submits that there is no violation of principles of
natural justice and the punishment was also not exorbitant, as
there was an allegation against the petitioner to outrage the
modesty of a school girl and POCSO Act is also added in the
said criminal case.
6. Upon hearing the parties, this Court being the
Court of Review of the disciplinary proceeding has restricted for
the test of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority that
whether the order has been passed in accordance with Bihar
CCA Rules, 2005 or not or any violation of principles of natural
justice has been made or not, or the order passed is excessive or
not.
6.1 For the purpose of answering these questions, it
is necessary to quote the relevant para of Annexure-6 i.e. show
cause which has been issued by the Disciplinary Authority in
accordance with Rule 18(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005
which states as follows:-
“अतएव जॉच Ákfèkdkj के मं तवय से
असहमत होते हुये आपको ननरर श नरया
Patna High Court CWJC No.10839 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
8/10
जाता है नक बरती गई लापरवाही के
सं बंध मे आप अपना अं नतम बचाव
सपषटीकरण 15 नरनो के अं रर
अधोहसताकरी के कायारलय मे समनपरत
करना सु नननशचत करे गे । ननधारनरत अवनध
के vanj सपषटीकरण समनपरत नहीं करने
पर यह समझा जाये गा नक आपको इस
सं बंध मे कुछ नहीं कहना है और आपके
नवरद अं नतम आरे श पानरत कर नरया
जाये गा। सं चालन परानधकारी दारा
समनपरत मं तवय की Áfr साथ सं लगन
है ।”
7. It is also necessary to quote Rule 18(2) of the
Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 which states as follows:-
“The disciplinary authority, after
receipt of the enquiry report as per
Rule 17 (23)(ii) or as per sub-rule (1),
shall, if it disagrees with the findings
of the inquiring authority on any
article of charge, record its reasons
for such disagreement and record its
own finding on such charge, if the
evidences on record is sufficient for
the purpose.”
8. Upon perusal of the above quoted rule 18(2) of
the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, it is very much clear that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10839 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
9/10
Disciplinary Authority upon receiving of the enquiry report may
disagree on the enquiry report which has been submitted to him
under Rule 17(23)(ii). But the only legal restriction has to be
casted upon him that if, he disagrees with the findings of the
Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, he shall have to
record its reasons for such disagreement and record it’s own
finding on charges, if the evidences on record is sufficient for
the purpose.
9. It transpires to this Court that as per the quoted
para of Annexure-6 which has been mentioned above, it become
crystal clear that the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the
findings of the Inquiring Authority, but failed to record its
reasons for such disagreement and also not recorded its own
findings on such charge. Hence, this Court is of the firm view
that at the time of taking a decision for disagreement, there is a
gross violation of rule 18(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and
the said Annexure-6 has been passed in gross violation of Rule
18(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Since, the said letter i.e.
Annexure-6 is bad in law, therefore, the subsequent
orders/decisions shall also be bad in law.
10. In result, the letter contained in Memo No. 528
dated 29.01.2023 (Annexure-6); order of the Disciplinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.10839 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
10/10
Authority bearing Buxar District Order No. 342/2023 contained
in Memo No. 996 dated 25.03.2023 (Annexure-P/8); order of
the Appellate Authority bearing Buxar District Order No.
919/2023 contained in Memo No. 2569 dated 09.08.2023
(Annexure-P/10) and the order in the memorial bearing Buxar
District Order No. 764/2024 contained in Memo No. 2057 dated
18.06.2024 (Annexure-P/12), all are hereby set aside. The
respondent authority is directed to accept the joining of the
petitioner. However, the respondent authority shall be at liberty
to proceed further in accordance with law, within 90 days. The
petitioner shall also be entitled for payment and the
consequential benefits.
11. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation and
direction, this writ petition stands allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13/02/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…