Patna High Court
Dayanand Ram NiralaversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The impugned disciplinary orders were violative of procedural rules and natural justice and are set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, a Joint Director in the Agriculture Department, was suspended and subjected to departmental proceedings on allegations of defalcation. Although the enquiry officer found the charges unproved, he noted a deficiency in supervision. The disciplinary authority, without recording specific reasons for disagreeing with the enquiry report, imposed a punishment of withholding two annual increments and limited payment to a subsistence allowance, later rejecting the petitioner's review. The petitioner argued that the authority violated Rule 18(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, failed to list witnesses as required by Rule 17(4), and did not issue a notice under Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code, thereby breaching natural justice. Citing Supreme Court and Bihar High Court precedents, the court held the orders arbitrary and procedurally defective, set them aside, and directed payment of the withheld increments and full salary for the suspension period. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary authority complied with Rule 18(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 by recording reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report.
- Whether the failure to list and examine witnesses violated Rule 17(4) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the omission of a notice under Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code rendered the punishment order invalid.
- Whether the punitive order of withholding increments and salary was arbitrary and violative of established case law.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Service Code — s. Rule 97(3)
Subjects
- departmental proceedings
- natural justice
- procedural fairness
- service law
- Bihar CCA Rules
- Bihar Service Code
- suspension
- increment
- punitive action
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13021 of 2013
======================================================
Dayanand Ram Nirala S/O Late Ram Ekbal Ram R/O E/60, Peoples Co-Opt.
Colony, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Distt.- Patna-20.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Patna
3. Deputy Secretary, Agri. Deptt. Bihar, Patna
4. Under Secretary, Agri. Deptt., Bihar, Patna
5. Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya-Cum-Conducting Officer.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, GP-16
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, A.C. to G.P.-16
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-05-2026
Heard the parties
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) For quashing the notification contained in
memo no. 20 dt. 16/01/2013 issued under the
signature of resp. no. 4 whereby and where
under the two annual increments with
cumulative effect of the petitioner has been
withheld and further it has been ordered that
the petitioner shall get nothing except
subsistence allowance of the suspension
period. It has also been ordered that the
punishment shall be amended on the basis of
outcome of criminal case.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13021 of 2013 dt.05-05-2026
2/13
(ii) For direction upon the resp. to allow the
petitioner his annual increment and also to
pay him full salary of the suspension period
(iii) For any other relief/reliefs to which the
petitioner may be found entitled to.”
3. Vide order dated 01.09.2025, some additional prayers
have been added, which are also being reproduced hereinbelow:-
iv. For quashing the order bearing Memo No. 139
dated 24.03.2023 issued under the signature of
O.S.D., Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna
(Annexure-A to the counter affidavit).
v. To hold that the order passed by reviewing
authority is absolutely arbitrary, without
consideration of the contention of the petitioner
raised in his review application dated
28.02.2013(Annexure-8 to the supplementary
affidavit) and therefore, it is unsustainable.
vi. To direct the respondent authorities to ensure all
consequential benefits to the petitioner after
setting aside the punishment order as well as the
order passed by the reviewing authority."
4. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition
are that while the petitioner was posted as Joint Director,
Agriculture, Magadh Division, Gaya, certain allegations were
levelled against him. He was put under suspension vide
notification contained in Memo No. 180 dated 01.04.2011, issued
under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government,
Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna.
Subsequently, vide resolution contained in Memo No. 338 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.13021 of 2013 dt.05-05-2026
3/13
31.05.2011, issued under the signature of the Under Secretary,
Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna, a decision
was taken to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner
and the petitioner was directed to submit show cause reply within
15 days. Along-with the resolution dated 31.05.2011, Memo of
Charge was also served upon the petitioner. The petitioner
submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 27.10.2011,
whereby he denied all the charges levelled against him and
requested the conducting officer to exonerate him from the
charges. The conducting officer, after conducting the departmental
enquiry, wherein the petitioner also participated, submitted his
enquiry report on 20.03.2012, whereby he found charges levelled
against the petitioner to be not proved, however he on his own
recorded about deficiency in supervision on the part of the
petitioner. The disciplinary authority, by differing with the enquiry
report, issued second show cause notice to the petitioner vide letter
no. 438 dated 06.09.2012. In compliance thereof, the petitioner
vide his letter dated 19.09.2012 submitted his reply to the second
show cause notice, wherein he denied all the charges levelled
against him and also gave explanation to the charges levelled
against him. He further requested the disciplinary authority to
exonerate him from the charges levelled against him, since the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13021 of 2013 dt.05-05-2026
4/13
enquiry officer, during the course of inquiry, did not found the
charges to be proved against him. However, by the impugned order
contained in Memo No. 20 dated 16.01.2013, issued under the
signature of the disciplinary authority i.e. the Deputy Secretary to
the Government, Department of Agriculture, Government of
Bihar, Patna punishment of stoppage of two increment with
cumulative effect was passed against the petitioner and further
decision was taken to revoke the suspension of the the petitioner. It
was further ordered that apart from the subsistence allowance,
which has been paid during the period of suspension, the petitioner
will not be entitled for any further payment. It was further
recorded in the order dated 16.01.2013 that the punishment order
will be modified in future on the basis of the orders passed in the
criminal case, which has been lodged against the petitioner. The
petitioner preferred a review before the competent authority,
however vide order dated 24.02.2023 contained in Memo No. 139,
issued under the signature of the Officer-on-Special Duty,
Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna the review
preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
entire departmental proceeding has been conducted in complete
violation of the provisions contained in Rule 18(2) of the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.13021 of 2013 dt.05-05-2026
5/13
CCA Rules, 2005, which provides that if the disciplinary authority
disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority on any of the
articles of charge, he has to record his reason for disagreement
and record it’s own finding on such charge, if the evidences on
record is sufficient for the purpose. In the present case, while
issuing second show cause notice to the petitioner, the disciplinary
authority has not given any specific reason for disagreement with
the inquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer. He further
submits that so far the First Information Report, which is said to
have been lodged against the petitioner, the Superintendent of
Police, Gaya vide his letter contained in Memo No. 180 dated
03.02.2021 requested the District Magistrate, Gaya to accord
prosecution sanction against two persons namely Satish Kumar
and Indrajeet Kumar Vimal and recorded that the connivance of
the petitioner was not found in the case. Accordingly, vide Letter
No. 1297 dated 30.12.2022, issued under the signature of the
Directorate of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna,
prosecution sanction was accorded against both the above named
persons.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order of punishment has been passed without
considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, since in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13021 of 2013 dt.05-05-2026
6/13
impugned order, no consideration has been made by the
disciplinary authority with regard to the reply, which was
submitted by the petitioner. He further submits that even while
issuing memo of charge, no list of witnesses were provided, upon
which the department intended to rely during course of enquiry.
He further submits that the enquiry officer, while considering the
documents relied upon by the department, did not bothered to
direct the presenting officer for adducing oral evidence of the
persons, who were the authors of the documents, on which the
department was relying. Further, even no opportunity was granted
to the petitioner to adduce defense witnesses and to cross-examine
the witnesses, since no witness was produced by the department,
therefore, there is no question of any cross-examination.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the disciplinary authority, while passing the impugned order of
punishment, directed that for the period under suspension, apart
from subsistence allowances, the petitioner will not be entitled for
any payment, however no show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner for inflicting the said punishment, which is required to
be given under Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and
relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Patna High Court CWJC No.13021 of 2013 dt.05-05-2026
7/13
reported in 2010 (9) SCC 496 (Kranti Associates Private Limited
& Anr. Versus Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.), wherein in
paragraph nos. 12, 15 & 47 it has been held as follows:-
“12. The necessity of giving reason by a body or
authority in support of its decision came up for
consideration before this Court in several cases.
Initially this Court recognised a sort of
demarcation between administrative orders and
quasi-judicial orders but with the passage of time
the distinction between the two got blurred and
thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing
point in the judgment of this Court in A.K.
Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 :
AIR 1970 SC 150] .
15. This Court always opined that the face of an order
passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an
administrative authority affecting the rights of
parties, must speak. It must not be like the
“inscrutable face of a sphinx”.
47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court
holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to
record reasons, even in administrative decisions,
if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to
serve the wider principle of justice that justice
must not only be done it must also appear to be
done as well.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13021 of 2013 dt.05-05-2026
8/13
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid
restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of
judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative
power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been
exercised by the decision-maker on relevant
grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision-making process as
observing principles of natural justice by judicial,
quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior courts.”
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to
and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Court reported in 2006 (4) PLJR 514 (Dinesh Prasad Versus
State of Bihar & Ors.), wherein paragraph number 9 and 10, it
has been held as follows:-
“9. Apart from these questions, so far the main question
for which this matter has been referred, is concerned,
it appears that for imposing the punishment no. (iii)
that the petitioner shall not get anything for the
period of suspension save and except the subsistence
allowance, the disciplinary authority was required to
give separate show cause notice to the delinquent in
terms of Rule 97(3) of the Code. This part of the
order, therefore, is not permissible in absence of any
such notice to the delinquent employee.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13021 of 2013 dt.05-05-2026
9/13
10. Admittedly, it appears from the materials on record
and also from the record produced before us by the
State Counsel that no such opportunity was given to
the petitioner in terms of Rule 97(3) of the Code. A
Bench of this court while considering this question in
the case of Pramod Kumar v. The Champaran
Kshetriya Gramin Bank reported in 2003 (4) PLJR
68 relying upon a decision of this court rendered in
the case of Mahabir Prasad v. State of Bihar
reported in 1988 PLJR 82, held that non-observance
of the provisions of Rule 97(3) of the Code would
amount to violation of the principles of natural
justice. The orders impugned on these scores, appear
to be violative of the principles of natural justice as
referred to above.”
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-
State, while referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
department submits that there was an allegation of defalcation of
Rs 1,58,537.50/- against the petitioner, for which departmental
proceeding was initiated against him. By following the due process
of law, the memo of charge was issued to the petitioner and he was
directed to submit his reply to the said allegations/charge. A
petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and submitted his
reply to the show cause notice. The enquiry officer after
conducting the enquiry, although found the charges to be not
proved, however he found from the documents and evidences on
record that there was a dereliction of duty on the part of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13021 of 2013 dt.05-05-2026
10/13
petitioner for not taking due care in supervising the matter. He
further submits that the disciplinary authority, while differing with
the report of the enquiry officer, by giving due reasons, proceeded
to award the punishment against the petitioner and the same
requires no interference from this court, since the order is a
reasoned order. He further submits that the review preferred by the
petitioner has been rejected, after due consideration of the grounds
taken by the petitioner in his review petition.
11. Learned counsel for the State further submits that no
notices were required to be given to the petitioner by the
disciplinary authority, while passing the order of not making
payment of any further amount, apart from the subsistence
allowance, which has been paid to the petitioner during the period
under suspension. He finally submits that the punishment order has
been passed against the petitioner, since there was lack of
supervision of the work on the part of the petitioner, and therefore,
even after reconsideration of the same, it was not interfered by the
review authority.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner was
put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated
against him for the charges mentioned in the memo of charge.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13021 of 2013 dt.05-05-2026
11/13
However from the memo of charge itself, it would appear that no
witnesses were mentioned/supplied to the petitioner, whom the
department intended to rely during course of inquiry, which is in
complete violation of the provisions contained in Rule 17(4) of the
Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Further, since no witnesses were
examined during course of the examination, the petitioner was
denied an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and further
the documents, which were relied upon by the prosecution during
the course of enquiry, were never proved by the their respective
authors, in absence of examination of any witness. Even the
enquiry officer, after appraisal of the documents, came to the
conclusion that the allegations/ charges levelled against the
petitioner have not been found to be proved, however on his own,
he proceeded to record that there is lack of supervision on the part
of the petitioner, which was based on the documents, which he had
gathered during course of enquiry. However, he did not pain to
consider those documents were never proved by their respective
authors, therefore it was incorrect on his part to rely on the said
documents. Further, while imposing the punishment of non-
payment of any amount for the period, the petitioner remained
under suspension, except the subsistence allowance, no notices, as
required under Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code was ever
Patna High Court CWJC No.13021 of 2013 dt.05-05-2026
12/13
given to the petitioner, and therefore, the same is also in complete
violation of the principles of natural justice and Rule 97(3) of the
Bihar Service Code.
13. Considering the above, this court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order contained in Memo No. 20 dated
16.01.2013 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary,
Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna and the
order contained in Memo No. 139 dated 24.03.2023 passed by the
Officer on Special Duty, Department of Agriculture, Government
of Bihar, Patna, respectively, deserves to be set aside and are
accordingly set aside.
14. It has been informed at bar that during pendency of
the present writ petition, the petitioner has superannuated on
30.04.2014. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a
direction to the respondent authorities to give due benefit of the
increment, to which the petitioner was entitled, prior to passing of
the impugned order dated 16.01.2013 and to pay all the
consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of four
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.
It is further directed that the petitioner will be entitled for entire
salary for the period during which, he remained under suspension,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13021 of 2013 dt.05-05-2026
13/13
after deducting the amount, if any, paid to the petitioner towards
subsistence allowance.
15. The writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned
terms.
16. Pending application, if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
Ajay/Pallavi/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.05.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.