Patna High Court

Manorma KumariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 13 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: HARISH KUMAR

Holding

A de novo departmental enquiry on the same set of charges, without notice of disagreement and without granting the employee a hearing, is ultra vires of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 and must be set aside.

Summary

Manorma Kumari, a teacher, was suspended and later demoted to the lowest pay scale by the Bihar Education Department after a departmental enquiry that found her guilty of irregularities in an exam and other misconduct. She challenged the demotion, arguing that the disciplinary authority improperly ordered a fresh de novo enquiry despite an earlier enquiry report that exonerated her, violating Rule 17 and Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The High Court examined the procedural history, noting that no notice of disagreement with the first report was given and the second enquiry was conducted without granting her the right to examine evidence or cross‑examine witnesses. Relying on precedents (K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong; Union of India v. K.D. Pandey; Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar) the Court held that a de novo enquiry on the same charges is impermissible. Consequently, the Court quashed the demotion order, the subsequent appellate order, and directed restoration of the petitioner’s promotion. The writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the disciplinary authority could order a fresh de novo enquiry despite an earlier enquiry report exonerating the employee under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.
Whether the petitioner was denied the statutory right of notice and hearing in violation of Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules, 2005.
Whether the demotion and related punitive orders passed on the basis of the second enquiry are legally sustainable.

Subjects

departmental inquiry
de novo enquiry
disciplinary action
demotion
promotion restoration
procedural fairness
Rule 17
Rule 18
quashing order

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11984 of 2025
======================================================
Manorma Kumari Wife of Prem Sagar Singh, Resident of Village- Sisma,
Post Office- Mahsaura, Police Station- Lakhisarai (O.P Ramgarh), District-
Lakhisarai at present Ward No. 07, Near Sub Post Office- Lakhisarai,
Lakhisarai, Bihar. Now at present as H.M. of plus 2 Janta Uchha Vidyalaya,
Ali Nagar, District- Lakhisarai., District- Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger-
cum-Enquiry Officer
5. The District Education Officer, Lakhisarai
6. The District Programme Officer (Estt.), Lakhisarai.
7. The District Programme Officer, R.M.S.A., Lakhisarari. (Rashtriya
Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan).

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Lalan Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Navnit Kumar, AC to GP-18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-01-2026

Heard Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, learned Advocate duly

assisted by Mr. Lalan Kumar, learned Advocate for the

petitioner and Mr. Navnit Kumar, learned AC to GP-18.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as

contained in Memo No. 241 dated 11.09.2018, issued under the

signature of the respondent Director, Secondary Education,

Patna, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11984 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
2/12

punishment of demotion to the lowest pay scale i.e. basic grade

and the petitioner is held entitled only for subsistence allowance

during the period of suspension; further the petitioner has also

been debarred from holding the post of Incharge Head Master,

besides she shall not be deputed on any post relating to

examination in future.

3. The challenge has also been made to Memo No.

295 dated 27.06.2025, issued under the signature of Secretary,

Education Department, whereby the appeal preferred against the

order of punishment, in pursuant to the order passed by a Bench

of this Court in CWJC No. 1313 of 2019 came to be rejected.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is

apprised to this Court that the petitioner was extended

promotion to the post of Head Master vide Annexure 13 and 14

series, but the same has also been withdrawn vide Letter No.

739 dated 13.11.2025. The aforenoted order has further put to

challenge by filing an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No.

01 of 2025.

5. The relevant facts for adjudicating the issue are in a

narrow compass. The petitioner while posted as Incharge

Principal, Higher Secondary School, Purani Bazar, Lakhisarai

was placed under suspension on account of certain imputation,

in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The memo of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11984 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
3/12

charge was duly issued vide letter contained in Memo No. 113

dated 05.01.2018.

6. The petitioner was found indulge in the irregularity

conducted in the Intermediate Sent Up Test, 2016 and she did

not adhere the departmental order, besides involved in corrupt

practices and creating disorder in the school and causing

hindrances in the study work.

7. The petitioner on receipt of the memo of charge

submitted a detailed written statement. The explanation of the

petitioner was duly considered by the enquiry officer the

charges stood not prove and accordingly, the enquiry report was

duly submitted to the disciplinary authority, the copy of which is

also marked as Annexure-P/4.

8. In the meantime, the petitioner challenged the order

of suspension by preferring CWJC No. 7614 of 2018. A Bench

of this Court disposed off the same directing the respondents to

take a final decision on the suspension of the petitioner as well

as on enquiry report, within a maximum period of one month.

However, the respondent authority on being dissatisfied with the

enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, directed for de

novo enquiry at the instance of the learned Lokayukta, as is

evident from the letter contained in Memo No. 738 dated

07.03.2018.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11984 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
4/12

9. The petitioner again compelled to approach this

Court by filing MJC No. 2011 of 2018 as the order dated

24.02.2018 was not complied within a month and during the

pendency of the aforenoted application, she could come to know

that disciplinary authority has ordered for fresh enquiry, without

any notice or information to the petitioner, on same set of

charges and evidences obtained by the complainant. The

petitioner entered her appearance before the enquiry officer and

asked for the necessary documents in order to give proper reply.

10. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, the enquiry

proceeded and this time, the enquiry officer surprisingly found

the charges proved and submitted second enquiry report, as

contained in Letter No. 125 dated 10.07.2018 (Annexure-P/7).

The petitioner was asked second show-cause, which was

responded by the petitioner with a demand of certain documents

for proper reply, but the same has never been made available to

her and finally, the impugned order of punishment came to be

passed under Letter No. 241 dated 11.09.2018, demoting the

petitioner in basic grade of lower pay scale, besides other

punishment, as has been noted hereinabove.

11. The petitioner on being found the order of

punishment wholly without jurisdiction and in the teeth of the

prescriptions provided under Bihar Government Servants
Patna High Court CWJC No.11984 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
5/12

(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter

referred to as, “Rules, 2005”) has approached this Court by

filing CWJC No. 1313 of 2019; the same was disposed off with

a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal. The appeal

preferred by the petitioner also did not find merit and finally

came to be rejected.

12. Learned Advocate for the petitioner narrating the

entire facts has submitted that after receipt of the enquiry report,

in terms with Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005, if the disciplinary

authority was in disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry

Officer on any article of charge, he shall be at liberty to record

its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on

such charge, if the evidences on record is sufficient for the

purpose. However, in the case at hand, instead of assigning any

finding of disagreement, the disciplinary authority proceeded for

de novo enquiry, which is completely de hors the Rule 18 of

Rules, 2005.

13. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further

contended that even the decision to initiate a de novo enquiry,

has never been communicated to the petitioner nor had ever

granted the opportunity of examination and cross examination

of witnesses, as the same was carried out behind the back of the

petitioner. Despite repeated demand for necessary
Patna High Court CWJC No.11984 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
6/12

papers/documents, which were sine qua non to submit effective

reply to second show-cause, the same was not provided and the

punishment order was passed. The appeal was also rejected in a

mechanical manner, without appreciation of the fact that initially

the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges and has also

been granted due promotion, on being found fit for the same.

14. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State

refuting the contention of the petitioner submitted that earlier

enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer was duly examined

by the Director, Secondary Education and upon being dissatisfied

from the enquiry report, he directed the enquiry officer to collect

evidences, and in respect of irregularities committed by the

petitioner to conduct a fresh enquiry and submit a report, so that it

may be finally disposed off, as is evident from the Memo No.

738 dated 07.03.2018, addressed to the Under Secretary, Officer

of Lokayukata, Bihar, Patna. In the light of the aforesaid

direction, the enquiry officer proceeded further and after

considering the materials placed by the Presenting Officer

concluded that the charges levelled against the petitioner stands

proved and accordingly, a fresh enquiry report was submitted

vide Letter No. 125 dated 10.07.2018. The petitioner was duly

served with the second show-cause notice. However, the

petitioner did not submit explanation to the second show-cause
Patna High Court CWJC No.11984 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
7/12

notice. The disciplinary authority thus examined the enquiry

report as well as the relevant record and on being satisfied with

the enquiry report, inflicted the punishment by the impugned

order contained in Memo No. 241 dated 11.09.2018.

15. This Court has given anxious consideration to the

submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the respective

parties and also perused the materials available on record.

Before parting with the case, it would be relevant to take note of

certain admitted facts inter alia pertaining to initiation of

departmental proceeding, after serving the memo of charge to

the petitioner as well as submission of the enquiry report by the

enquiry officer dated 24.02.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ

petition), whereby the petitioner has been exonerated from all

the charges and recommendation has been made for revoking

the suspension.

16. There is no material on record which transpired

that after submission of the initial enquiry report, in terms with

Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005, either there is any disagreement

with the finding of the enquiry authority on any article of charge

or any notice has been issued to the petitioner, regarding any

dissatisfaction with the enquiry report. Rule 18 (1) of the Rules,

2005 categorically states that the disciplinary authority, if it is

not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded
Patna High Court CWJC No.11984 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
8/12

by it in writing, may remit the case to the inquiring authority for

further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall

thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the

provisions of Rule 17 as far as may be.

17. After going through the counter affidavit as well

as the communication made by the Director, Secondary

Education to the Under Secretary, Office of Lokayukata, the

disciplinary authority had intended not for the further enquiry,

on being dissatisfied for recording any reason in writing, rather

has directed for a fresh de novo enquiry, which is out-and-out

impermissible in law. The identical issue has come up for

consideration before the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [CWJC No. 7068 of

2020], wherein the learned Court having taken note of the

mandate of the Apex Court in the case of K R Deb Vs. The

Collector of Central Excise, Shillong (1971) 2 SCC 102 and a

subsequent decision in the case of Union of India Vs. K D

Pandey & Anr., (2002) 10 SCC 471 has been pleased to hold

that the provisions under Rules, 2005 do not contemplate a

second departmental inquiry for the same set of charges by

appointing a new Enquiring Authority though further inquiry is

permitted in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the

Rules. It would be pertinent to encapsulate the relevant
Patna High Court CWJC No.11984 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
9/12

paragraph nos. 10 – 14.

“10. In case of K.R. Deb vs. The
Collector of Central Excise, Shillong reported
in (1971) 2 SCC 102 a five Judge Constitution
Bench of Supreme Court had the occasion to
examine Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965 [CCS (CCA) Rules]. Rule 15(1) of CCS
(CCA) Rules and Rule 18(1) of the Rules are in
pari materia. Examining various provisions of
the CCS Rules, the Special Bench of Supreme
Court has held in case of K.R. Deb (supra) in
paragraph 12 as under :-
“12. It seems to us that
Rule 15, on the face of it,
really provides for one
inquiry but it may be
possible if in a particular
case there has been no
proper enquiry because
some serious defect has
crept into the inquiry or
some important witnesses
were not available at the
time of the inquiry or were
not examined for some
other reason, the
Disciplinary Authority
may ask the Inquiry
Officer to record further
evidence. But there is no
provision in Rule 15 for
completely setting aside
previous inquiries on the
ground that the report of
the Inquiring Officer or
Officers does not appeal to
the Disciplinary Authority.
The Disciplinary Authority
has enough powers to
reconsider the evidence
Patna High Court CWJC No.11984 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
10/12

itself and come to its own
conclusion under Rule 9.”

11. In a subsequent decision in case
of Union of India vs. K.D. Pandey & Anr. and
another reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471, The
Supreme Court dealing with the provisions
under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1968 had disapproved a departmental
inquiry being sent back in the name of further
inquiry in following terms :
“5. …...Indeed
this resulted in second
inquiry and not in a further
inquiry on the same set of
charges and the material on
record. If this process is
allowed the inquiries can
go on perpetually until the
view of the inquiry
authority is in accord with
that of the disciplinary
authority and it would be
abuse of the process of law.
In that view of the matter
we think that the order
made by the High Court
affirming the order of the
Tribunal is just and proper
and, therefore, we decline
to interfere with the same.
The appeal is dismissed
accordingly.”

(Underlined for emphasis)

12. On examining various provisions
under the Rules, I have no hesitation in reaching
a definite conclusion that these provisions do
not contemplate a second departmental inquiry
for the same set of charges by appointing a new
Enquiring Authority though further inquiry is
Patna High Court CWJC No.11984 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
11/12

permitted in accordance with sub-rule (1) of
Rule 15 of the Rules.
13. I have noted the fact that the
Disciplinary Authority has not mentioned any
inherent defect in the findings recorded by the
Enquiring Authority. It is true that there may be
circumstance warranting fresh inquiry if the
inquiry already held is found to be inherently
defective.
14. In such view of the matter, the
impugned order is not legally sustainable and is
accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded
back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass an
order afresh on the report of the Enquiring
Authority strictly in accordance with the
statutory provisions under Rule 18(1) of the
Rules.”

18. This Court also finds that the first enquiry report

exonerating the petitioner from all the charges has not been

accepted by the Disciplinary Authority without assigning any

reason and further with respect to the fresh or de novo enquiry,

the petitioner has never been put to notice or afforeded any

opportunity of hearing; besides her repeated demand of

papers/documents have been never ever answered and also

deprived from the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.

Since the very direction of the fresh enquiry is per se illegal and

against the terms of the prescription of Rule 18 of the Rules,

2005, this Court has no hesitation to hold the entire

departmental proceeding from the stage of submission of the

first enquiry report as bad and illegal. Accordingly, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11984 of 2025 dt.13-01-2026
12/12

impugned order contained in Memo No. 241 dated 11.09.2018

stands quashed.

19. On account of quashing of the aforenoted

impugned order, the appellate order contained in Memo No. 295

dated 27.06.2025 also does not survive and hereby stands

quashed.

20. The authorities are also directed to restore the

promotion of the petitioner, as was accorded to her during the

pendency of the writ petition. The impugned order dated

31.10.2025 and its consequential order, contained in Annexure-

15 series also stand quashed, in view of the impugned orders of

punishment and its affirmance in the appeal, having been set

aside. I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is hereby allowed.

21. The writ petition stands allowed. The

consequences shall follow. However, the respondents shall be at

liberty to take further action in the matter from the stage the

proceeding has been found at fault, in accordance with law, if

they are advised to do so.

(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.01.2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…