Patna High Court
Dr. Manoj Kumar SinghversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The disciplinary authority’s order of dismissal was vitiated by procedural defects and lack of evidence, and therefore the High Court set aside the order and directed reinstatement with back wages, pension and payment of subsistence allowance.
Summary
Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh, a Medical Officer in Jamui, was suspended in 1997 and later subjected to multiple departmental proceedings culminating in a dismissal order dated 27‑02‑2015. The petitioner contended that the charges were vague, the enquiry officer failed to examine witnesses or consider his defence, and the disciplinary authority did not give reasons for rejecting his reply, violating natural‑justice principles and the Bihar Service Code. The State argued the writ was non‑maintainable because the petitioner had not filed a review under Rule 24(2) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. The High Court examined the record, found that no evidence or witness testimony was produced, the enquiry report was unsound, and the dismissal was therefore vitiated. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal, ordered payment of subsistence allowance for the suspension period, 50 % back‑wages up to retirement, full pension and post‑retirement benefits, and directed compliance within four months. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- The departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and the Bihar Service Code.
- Whether the dismissal order is vitiated due to lack of evidence and failure to consider the petitioner's reply.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance during suspension.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement, back wages, pension and post‑retirement benefits.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the petitioner’s failure to file a review under Rule 24(2).
Legislation cited
- Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 — s. Rule 17, Rule 18(1), Rule 24(2)
- Bihar Service Code — s. Rule 18(1), Rule 24(2), Rule 96, Rule 97
Subjects
- departmental enquiry
- natural justice
- dismissal from service
- subsistence allowance
- Bihar Service Code
- Bihar C.C.A. Rules
- reinstatement
- back wages
- pension
- procedural fairness
Judgment
lIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12490 of 2016
======================================================
Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh son of late Sachidanad Singh resident of Jamaui
Police Station Jamui District Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family
Welfare, Government of Biha
3. Joint Secretary Department of Health Medical Education and Family
Welfare Government of Bihar Patna
4. The Director in Chief Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. Deputy Secretary Department, of Health , Medical Education and Family
Welfare, Government of Bihar
6. Deputy Director Health Services Bihar Patna
7. Regional Deputy Director Health, Services Munger Division Munger
8. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Jamui
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Singh, Senior Advocate
Mr. Satyendra Rai, Advocate
Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Advocate
Mr. Hari Om, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sitaram Yadav, G.P.16
Mr. Yatindra Narayan, A.C. to G.P.16
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-07-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:
“i For issuance of an order,
direction or writ including writ in the nature
of Certiorari quashing the resolution
contained in memo no 167 (9) dated
27.02.2015 whereby and where under
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
2/23
Petitioner has been dismissed from service
and it has been further ordered that only
subsistence allowance would be paid to the
Petitioner for the period of suspension.
ii. For issuance of an order,
direction or writ including writ in the nature
of mandamus commanding the respondents
not to give effect to the resolution contained
in memo no 167 (9) dated 27. 02. 2015.
iii. For issuance of an order,
direction or writ including writ in the
Mandamus commanding the respondents to
exonerate the Petitioner from the charges as
the charges were not proved in the
departmental proceeding.
iv. For issuance of an order,
direction or writ including writ in the nature
of Mandamus commanding the Respondents
to reinstate the Petitioner in service with full
back wages and allow him to discharge his
duties without being disturbed.
v. For issuance of an order,
direction or writ including writ in the nature
of Mandamus commanding the respondents to
make payment of the subsistence allowance
with interest forth with and make payment of
the back wages immediately after
reinstatement of the Petitioner.
vi. For any other relief(s) to
which the Petitioner may be found entitled in
the facts and circumstances of the present
case.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The brief facts, which are necessary for
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
3/23
adjudication of the present case, are that while the petitioner was
working as Medical Officer, Sub-Divisional Hospital, Jamui,
vide resolution contained in Memo No.138 (18) dated
28.01.1997, a decision was taken to initiate departmental
proceeding against the petitioner for certain allegations levelled
against him. The enquiry officer as well as the presenting officer
were also appointed. Memo of charge was issued to the
petitioner wherein two charges were levelled against him.
Subsequently, the petitioner was put under suspension vide
Memo No. 544(18) dated 29.03.1997 for defying the orders of
the government for not joining his transferred place of posting,
in terms of transfer order dated 13.12.1993. Certain allegations
were levelled against him by the said suspension order dated
29.03.1997. The petitioner submitted an application on
29.08.1997 to the effect that the suspension letter dated
29.03.1997 was not provided to him and he did not receive any
letter from the department with regard to his transfer. On the
same day, the petitioner also submitted an application that the
memo of charge has not been provided to him. It is the case of
the petitioner that subsequently he was provided with the memo
of charge and thereafter he submitted his explanation to the
charges levelled against him, whereby he denied all the charges
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
4/23
levelled against him and requested the enquiry officer to
exonerate him from the said charges. It is further case of the
petitioner that vide Memo No.555 dated 17.06.2011, while
setting aside the earlier decision of issuance of memo of charge
and initiation of departmental proceeding, fresh decision was
taken to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner in
terms of Rule 17 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 and the
enquiry officer as well as the presenting officer were appointed.
Fresh memo of charge was issued on 17.06.2011. Due to
retirement of the enquiry officer, vide Memo No.681 dated
19.06.2013, again an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry
officer, after conducting enquiry, submitted his enquiry report
before the disciplinary authority on 31.07.2013, whereby he
found charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved, except
charge no.2(ii). Immediately thereafter, vide letter contained in
Memo No.1237 dated 20.09.2013, the petitioner was issued
second show-cause notice. The petitioner gave his reply to the
said second show-cause notice before the disciplinary authority
on 10.10.2013, whereby he again denied all the charges levelled
against him and requested the disciplinary authority to exonerate
him from the charges levelled against him. The petitioner in his
defence also annexed Memo No.456 dated 30.06.1994 issued
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
5/23
under the signature of the District Magistrate, Jamui, whereby he
requested the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of
Health, Government of Bihar, Patna to post another doctor in
place of the petitioner and it was further informed that till such
alternative arrangements are not made, the petitioner has been
directed not to be relieved from the hospital i.e. Sub-Divisional
Hospital, Jamui. It is further case of the petitioner that one of the
charges against him was of assaulting the peon of the
department, while he came for certain verification, for which a
First Information Report was lodged, however the petitioner was
acquitted of the charges levelled against him by the Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui vide his judgment dated 30.01.1999
passed in G.R. Case No.54 of 1995 (T.R. Case No.65 of 1999). It
is the case of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority,
without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the
second show-cause, proceeded to award punishment of dismissal
from service against the petitioner vide Memo No.167(9) dated
27.02.2015 and further directed that for the period under
suspension, the petitioner will not receive anything, apart from
the subsistence allowance. The petitioner preferred an appeal
before the competent authority, however the appeal preferred by
the petitioner was rejected vide Memo No.462 dated 27.04.2016
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
6/23
by holding it to be not maintainable and it was further mentioned
that review is maintainable against the order of punishment. It is
further case of the petitioner that although he was kept under
suspension from 1997 till 2015 i.e. till the date of his dismissal,
however, not a single farthing was paid to him towards
subsistence allowance. He submits that vide Memo No.1301
dated 19.06.2015, the bills for payment of subsistence allowance
were sent to the tune of Rs.18,80,326/-, however, no payment
has been made to the petitioner towards his subsistence
allowance.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that from a bare perusal of the memo of charge, it would
transpire that the charges levelled against the petitioner are
vague. No list of witnesses were provided to the petitioner, on
which the department intended to rely during course of enquiry.
He further submits that the enquiry officer did not consider the
materials brought by the petitioner in his favour and instead,
shifted the burden upon the petitioner to prove his innocence,
proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges, which
were levelled against him. He further submits that although as
per Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code, the petitioner was entitled
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
7/23
for payment of subsistence allowance, for the period under
suspension, however the same was never paid to the petitioner
and finally by the impugned order dated 27.02.2015, the
petitioner has been terminated from service.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
further submits that although the petitioner was transferred from
Sub-Divisional Hospital, Jamui, but the said order of transfer
was not made effective inasmuch as that the District Magistrate,
Jamui directed the Superintendent of the Sadar Hospital at
Jamui, not to relieve the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was
not relieved to join his transferred place of posting. He submits
that even the disciplinary authority, while awarding the
punishment of dismissal from service, did not take into account
the reply to the second show-cause notice, filed on behalf of the
petitioner and only in a mechanical manner proceeded to reject
the reply submitted by the petitioner and awarded the
punishment of dismissal from service and for payment of only
subsistence allowance for the period, during which the petitioner
was kept under suspension. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner further submits that in terms of Rule 18(1) of the Bihar
C.C.A. Rules, 2005, the department was competent to make
further enquiry, however there is no provision in the Rules to
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
8/23
initiate fresh departmental proceeding or to conduct a de novo
enquiry for modified charges, as has been done by the
department in the present case.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in
support of his contentions, refers to and relies upon a judgment
of this Hon’ble Court reported in 2005 (3) PLJR 142 (Sri Jai
Prakash Narayan v/s The State of Bihar & Ors.), wherein a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph no.8 has held as
follows:
“8. The aforesaid reasoning of this
Court with regard to the enquiry report would find
support from the judgment of the Supreme Court
reported in AIR 1985 SC 1121 (Anil Kumar vs.
Presiding Officer & Ors.). Dealing with the order of
punishment for reasons of non-application of mind in
the enquiry report their Lordships were pleased to
hold in para 5 of the judgment that a disciplinary
enquiry is a quasi judicial enquiry to be held in
consonance with the principles of natural justice. The
Enquiry Officer has to apply his mind to the
evidence, discuss the evidence and not record his
ipse dixit that the charges are proved. The enquiry
report must permit a peep into the mind of the
Enquiry Officer and that he considered the pros and
cons of the matter before arriving at a conclusion.
The report has to be an speaking order in the sense
that the conclusion must be suported by reasons. This
would be the view reiterated in 2002(7) SCC 142
(Sher Bahadur vs. Union of India & Ors.). The
mere recital of the rhetoric words that he had
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
9/23
considered the oral, documentary and circumstantial
evidence as adduced in the enquiry would not suffice
to uphold the same.”
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
further refers to and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Roop
Singh Negi v/s Punjab National Bank), wherein in paragraph
no.14, it has been 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.”
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
further refers to and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 (State of
U.P. v/s Saroj Kumar Sinha), wherein in paragraph no.28 and
30, it has been held as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
10/23
“28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-
judicial authority is in the position of an independent
adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative
of the department/disciplinary authority/Government.
His function is to examine the evidence presented by
the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent
official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence
is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In
the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been
observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined
the documents have not been proved, and could not
have been taken into consideration to conclude that
the charges have been proved against the
respondents.
30. When a departmental enquiry is
conducted against the government servant it cannot
be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry
proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed
mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased.
The rules of natural justice are required to be
observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is
manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of
natural justice is to ensure that a government servant
is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate
in imposition of punishment including
dismissal/removal from service.”
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
further refers to and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 (Ravi
Yashwant Bhoir v/s District Collector, Raigad & Ors.),
wherein in paragraph no.44, it has been held as follows:
“44. This Court while deciding the issue
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
11/23
in Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing
Society Ltd., placing reliance on its various earlier
judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 345-46, para 27)
“27. It is a settled legal
proposition that not only administrative but
also judicial orders must be supported by
reasons recorded in it. Thus, while deciding
an issue, the court is bound to give reasons
for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation
on the part of the court to record reasons
while disposing of the case. The hallmark of
order and exercise of judicial power by a
judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its
reasons by itself and giving of reasons has
always been insisted upon as one of the
fundamentals of sound administration of the
justice delivery system, to make it known that
there had been proper and due application of
mind to the issue before the court and also as
an essential requisite of the principles of
natural justice.
‘3. … The giving of reasons for
a decision is an essential attribute of judicial
and judicious disposal of a matter before
courts, and which is the only indication to
know about the manner and quality of
exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the
court concerned had really applied its mind.’
The reasons is the heartbeat of every
conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and
without the same, the order becomes lifeless.
Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The
absence of reasons renders an order
indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the
order is subject to further challenge before a higher
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
12/23
forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of
natural justice and every judicial order must be
supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures
transparency and fairness in decision making. The
person who is adversely affected must know why his
application has been rejected.”
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE RESPONDENTS
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State, while referring to the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the respondents, submits that the appeal preferred
by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of its non-
maintainability, since in terms of Rule 24(2) of the Bihar C.C.A.
Rules, 2005, the petitioner should have filed a review petition,
however the petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, did
not file any review petition and has preferred the present writ
petition, therefore, the present writ petition itself is not
maintainable. He submits that the departmental proceeding was
conducted in terms of the provisions contained in Bihar C.C.A.
Rules, 2005 and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to
defend himself. The petitioner participated in the said
proceeding, however the disciplinary authority, while rejecting
the second show-cause reply submitted by the petitioner,
proceeded to award punishment of dismissal from service and
further directed that the period, during which the petitioner
remained under suspension, he will be entitled for payment of
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
13/23
subsistence allowance and nothing further will be paid to him for
the said period.
CONCLUSION/ANALYSIS
11. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that a decision was taken to
initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner on
28.01.1997, for the charges levelled against him. In the said
charge, there was no mention of unauthorized absence of the
petitioner from service. Subsequently, the petitioner was put
under suspension on 29.03.1997 for disobeying the order of
transfer issued against him. It further appears from the records
that vide Letter No.456 dated 30.06.1994, the petitioner was
directed not to be relieved form Sub-Divisional Hospital, Jamui
by the District Magistrate Jamui. Subsequently, the charges
levelled against the petitioner were modified by the authorities
and decision was taken to initiate fresh departmental proceeding
against the petitioner for the fresh charges, for which memo of
charge was issued on 17.06.2011. It further appears that the
enquiry officer proceeded to submit his enquiry report before the
disciplinary authority, wherein he found the charges levelled
against the petitioner to be proved, except charge no.2(ii), on the
28.01.1997basis of the documents and upon his own
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
14/23
consideration, without examination or cross-examination of any
of the witnesses. It is settled law that even in an ex-parte enquiry
it is incumbent upon the enquiry officer to prove the charges on
the basis of the evidences of the witnesses, to prove the
documents relied during enquiry, however, in the present case,
no such effort was made by the enquiry officer and only on the
basis of his own consideration and the materials/documents
which were never proved by their respective authors, the
disciplinary authority proceeded to submit his report, by holding
that the charges have been found to be proved, except charge
no.2(ii), since the petitioner failed to deny the charges and it was
the duty of the petitioner to prove his innocence. The
disciplinary authority issued second show-cause notice to the
petitioner and it appears from the impugned order dated
27.02.2015, that without consideration of the reply submitted by
the petitioner and without application of his mind, the
disciplinary authority proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from
service, only on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the
enquiry officer. The impugned order passed by the disciplinary
authority does not contain any reason for rejection of the
reply/second show-cause reply submitted by the petitioner. It
further appears that no subsistence allowance has been paid to
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
15/23
the petitioner during the period he remained under suspension
and with regard to non-payment of anything, apart from what has
been paid to the petitioner during the period of suspension, no
separate show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, that why
the petitioner be denied the entire salary for the said period,
which is in violation of the provisions contained under Rule 97
of the Bihar Service Code.
12. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Jai Prakash Saini Vs. Managing
Director U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. And Ors.,
reported in 2026 (3) PLJR 125 SC, wherein in paragraph
nos.17 & 18 it has been held as follows:
“17. From the decisions of this Court in Sur Enamel
(supra): (AIR 1963 SC 1914) and Kharak Singh
(supra): (2008 AIR SCW 7507), followed in Chamoli
District Cooperative (supra): (AIR 2016 SC 2510),
which deals with similar service rules as are
applicable here, it is now settled that unless the
charged employee accepts his guilt in clear terms,
an enquiry on the charges drawn against him would
have to be held. In the enquiry, the
employer/department would have to take steps first
to lead evidence against the workmen/delinquent
charged and give an opportunity to him to cross
examine those witnesses. Only thereafter, the
workmen /delinquent shall be asked whether he
wants to lead any evidence and/or submit an
explanation about the evidence led against him.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
16/23
Even in a case based solely on documentary
evidence, unless the relied upon documents are
admitted by the charged employee, a witness would
have to be examined to prove those documents and
when so examined, the witness would have to be
tendered for cross-examination.
18. In the instant case, we find that the department
had not produced any witness in the enquiry even
though the charges levelled upon the appellant were
denied by him. Therefore, in our view, the enquiry
stood vitiated. Once the enquiry stood vitiated, the
consequential order of punishment/recovery cannot
be sustained. We therefore allow this appeal. The
impugned judgment and order of the High Court is
set aside. The writ petition of the appellant stands
allowed to the extent indicated below. The order of
dismissal and consequential recovery is set aside.
The Federation is, however, at liberty to hold a de
novo enquiry, if it so desires, within a period of six
months from the date of this order. If the Federation
does not hold de novo enquiry as permitted above,
the appellant shall be entitled to reinstatement with
benefit of continuity in service including arrears of
salary after adjusting suspension allowance, if any,
paid already. In case the Federation chooses to hold
an enquiry, it shall reinstate the appellant and place
him under suspension till completion of the enquiry
and during this period pay suspension allowance as
may be payable in accordance with law. In case de
novo enquiry is held, other service benefits including
arrears of salary as well as benefits of continuity in
service shall depend on the outcome of the enquiry.”
13. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
a recent judgment passed in a case reported in 2026 INSC 639
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
17/23
(Surekha Domaji Bele Vs. Executive Engineer, Testing
Division MSEDCL) in paragraph nos.106, 107, 108, 109, 110
and 111.7 has held as follows:
“106. Dismissal from service is the
severest form of penalty which can be inflicted on a
delinquent employee in service jurisprudence. It
brings the relationship of employer and employee to
an end permanently, and ordinarily deprives the
employee of the incidents of past service, including
retiral benefits. It does not lead merely to the loss of
the existing source of income for the employee but
also for the dependent family members. Thus, it will
have a devastating effect not only on the dismissed
employee but also on all those who are dependant on
the employee. Because of the severity of its impact
not only on the employee but also to his dependents,
the disciplinary authority must be very careful in
seeking to impose the severest form of punishment of
dismissal. It further carries consequences beyond
immediate cessation of employment. It leaves a
permanent stigma on the service record of the
employee concerned, and may impair future
employment prospects, particularly in public
employment, statutory bodies, public sector
undertakings and other regulated establishments
where antecedents and service record are material.
For this reason, dismissal must remain reserved for
cases where the misconduct is of the most serious
nature where elements of synthetic consideration
would be undesirable and inappropriate.
107. The misconduct found proved
against the Appellant relates to indiscipline,
insubordination, and the consequent tampering with
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
18/23
documents. We are not minimizing the importance of
discipline in an office establishment. However, the
material presently noticed does not show corruption,
illegal gratification, moral turpitude,
misappropriation of funds, proved pecuniary loss to
the employer, public scandal, or conduct bringing the
institution into public disrepute. The allegations
substantially appear to arise out of internal office
functioning and service-related conflict and did not
play out in the public domain.
108. In the present case, we do not find
that the competent authority undertook such an
exercise of evaluating various relevant factors. The
order does not reflect consideration of the Appellant's
long service, past record, age, absence or presence of
dishonesty, or absence or presence of actual loss as
also commended by the Labour Court.
109. Even where the Regulations
include dismissal as one of the permissible
punishments for acts of misconduct, the authority is
not relieved of its duty to consider all relevant factors
to see whether the facts of the case truly warrant the
most extreme form of penalty. The mere fact that a
proved act falls within the broad category of
"misconduct" under the Regulations does not mean
that dismissal must follow as a matter of course.
110. Dismissal is ordinarily justified
where the misconduct is of such gravity that
continuance of the employee would be wholly
incompatible with discipline, trust or institutional
functioning. Cases involving corruption, illegal
gratification, moral turpitude, misappropriation, acts
causing substantial loss to the employer, or conduct
showing complete unfitness for continued service
stand on a different footing. (However, where the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
19/23
misconduct does not involve corruption, moral
turpitude, financial misappropriation or proved loss
to the employer, and where there is long service
without much blemish, the disciplinary authority
must carefully examine whether any lesser
punishment would meet the ends of justice.
111.7 Before imposing the penalty of
dismissal from service, the disciplinary authority
failed to consider the relevant factors bearing on
punishment, including the nature and gravity of the
misconduct, the Appellant's long service, past record,
age, absence of financial loss to the Respondent
Company, or dishonesty, and the possibility of
imposing a lesser penalty.”
14. In the present case, the charge against the
petitioner is that he remained absent from duties upon his
transfer from Jamui, however the documents were produced
before the enquiry officer to the effect that the District
Magistrate, Jamui directed the Deputy Superintendent of the
Sub-Divisional Hospital at Jamui not to relieve the petitioner for
his joining and therefore on account of the letters written by the
District Magistrate, Jamui, the petitioner was not relieved and it
was not in control of the petitioner to give joining before the
authorities concerned. The letter of the District Magistrate, Jamui
was within the knowledge of the Secretary-cum-Commissioner
of the Department of Health. The enquiry officer did not take
into consideration the defence taken by the petitioner and
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
20/23
rejected the same without even referring to the said letter and
found the petitioner to be guilty of defiance of the orders of
transfer.
15. Considering the totality of the facts and the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to the effect
that no witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding
and the disciplinary authority without even considering the reply
submitted by the petitioner to the second show-cause notice, in a
mechanical manner, proceeded to award the punishment of
dismissal from service against the petitioner, this Court is of the
opinion that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary
authority contained in Memo No.167(9) dated 27.02.2015 issued
under the signature of the Joint Secretary to the Government,
Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna deserves to
be set aside and is accordingly, set aside. This Court is conscious
of the fact that no review was preferred by the petitioner against
the order passed by the disciplinary authority in terms of Rule
24(2) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. This Court is aware of
the fact that departmental proceeding was initiated on
28.01.1997 and subsequently the same was again initiated on
17.06.2011 and finally the order of punishment was issued on
27.02.2015. The appeal was also rejected as not maintainable on
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
21/23
24.04.2016. The writ petition was filed on 02.08.2016, however
somehow or other it remained pending before this Hon’ble
Court. The petitioner retired on 30.09.2023, therefore now
relegating the petitioner to the authorities concerned for availing
the alternative remedy will again cause prejudice to his cause,
which remain pending for almost 10 years, before this Hon’ble
Court and no useful purpose would be served.
16. It has been informed that during pendency of the
writ petition, the petitioner has attained the age of
superannuation on 30.09.2023. Therefore, this Court is not
remitting the matter back to the respondent authorities to proceed
afresh in the matter, since the High Court under Article 226/227
is entitled to interfere when the finding of fact is based on no
evidence and if in every case where no valid evidence is laid at
the enquiry proceeding, there is a remand made, it would be
offering a premium to the negligence of the
management/disciplinary authority and condoning the levity
with which the departmental enquiry was conducted. It is the
disciplinary authority, who appoints the Enquiry Officer and the
Presenting Officer and it is expected that the Presenting Officer
would be well versed in the procedures and also be informed in
the manner in which evidence has to be laid before the Enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
22/23
Officer, to prove the misconduct, alleged against a delinquent
employee. In a disciplinary enquiry proceeding, it is also the trite
principle that the standard of proof is preponderance of
probability as distinguished from proof beyond reasonable doubt,
as would be required in a criminal prosecution. However, if there
is no evidence laid at the enquiry, there is no question of any
preponderance of probability being drawn to find the allegations
proved nor can the delinquent be penalised on the basis of
peremptory finding without any valid evidence. Reference may
be made in this regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Bihar & Ors. v/s
Vikash Kumar @ Vikas Kumar in L.P.A. No.446 of 2024.
17. Accordingly, from the considerations made above,
the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner will be entitled for
payment of salary for the entire period during which he remained
under suspension i.e. 29.03.1997 to 27.02.2015 i.e. the date of
his termination. The petitioner would further be entitled for
payment of 50% of the backwages for the period 28.02.2015 till
the date of his retirement i.e. 30.09.2023 in view of the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 15.12.2025 passed
in Civil Appeal No.14775 of 2025, arising out of SLP (C)
No.8180 of 2020 (Dinesh Chandra Sharma Dead through LRS
Patna High Court CWJC No.12490 of 2016 dt.06-07-2026
23/23
v/s Bhartiya Paryatan Vikas Nigam Limited & Anr.) The
petitioner will be entitled for payment of full pension w.e.f.
01.10.2023 and all the post retirement benefits, for which he
would have been entitled prior to issuance of order dated
27.02.2015. The entire exercise in this regard must be completed
by the authorities concerned within a period of four months from
the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.
18. With the aforementioned directions, the writ
petition is allowed.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.07.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.