Patna High Court
Amit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The enquiry was unlawful as it did not meet the statutory requirements of the Bihar Municipal Act, and the suspension order automatically revoked for non‑service of a charge‑sheet, rendering the impugned orders void.
Summary
The petitioner, a Bihar Municipal Service officer serving as Executive Officer of the newly constituted Nagar Parishad Sampatchak, was suspended and directed to lodge an FIR following an ex‑parte enquiry ordered by the District Magistrate and reported by the Additional Collector‑cum‑District Public Grievance Redressal Officer. The petitioner challenged the orders on the grounds that the enquiry violated Sections 65‑67 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 because it was conducted by an officer of insufficient rank and without the statutory notice and hearing required under the Act and principles of natural justice. The Court examined whether the State could lawfully depose the District Magistrate to conduct the enquiry and whether the suspension remained valid under Rule 9(7) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. It held that the enquiry was ultra vires the Act, the suspension automatically lapsed on 1 October 2024 for failure to serve a charge‑sheet within three months, and the orders directing suspension and FIR were therefore void. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner was reinstated with full back‑pay and benefits.
Issues considered
- The enquiry conducted under the District Magistrate complied with the rank and procedural requirements of Section 66 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
- Whether the State Government’s reliance on the enquiry report without a show‑cause notice violated the proviso to Section 67 and the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the suspension order remained valid under Rule 9(7) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 given the charge‑sheet was not served within three months.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 — s. Rule 9(1), Rule 9(7)
- Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 — s. 65, 66, 67
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
Subjects
- municipal governance
- natural justice
- suspension
- departmental enquiry
- Bihar Municipal Act
- Article 226
- procedural fairness
- jurisdiction
- disciplinary proceedings
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13227 of 2024
======================================================
Amit Kumar Son of Satya Narayan Prasad, R/o Village-Belaganj, P.S.-
Belaganj, District-Gaya.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Chief Secretary, Urban Development Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Special Secretary, Urban Development Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Secretary, Urban Development Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Officer on Special Duty, Urban Development Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
7. Under Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate, Patna.
9. The Additional Collector cum District Public Grievance Redressal Officer,
Patna.
10. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parisad, Sampatchak, Dist- Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the State : S.C-7
For the Resp. No.10 : Mr. Krishna Kant Tiwary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-06-2026
The present writ petition has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the two
impugned orders, both dated 30.06.2024, issued by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
2/40
Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government
of Bihar. The reliefs originally claimed in the writ petition are
reproduced here-under :-
“i. For quashing the order contained in letter no.
4316 dated 30.06.2024 (Annexure-P/1) issued
by respondent no.5 whereby and whereunder
on the basis of ex parte enquiry and enquiry
report direction has been given to lodge F.I.R.
against the petitioner.
ii. For quashing the order contained in Memo
No. 4315 dated 30.06.2024 (Annexure-P/2)
issued by respondent no.4 whereby and
whereunder on the basis of ex parte enquiry
and enquiry report the petitioner has been put
under suspension and decision has been taken
to initiate departmental proceeding against the
petitioner.
iii. For giving direction not to make interference
in day to day functioning of Nagar Parishad
by the local administration without any
enquiry, direction and approval by the State
Government as contemplated under Sections
65, 66 and 67 of the Bihar Municipal Act,
2007.
iv. For grant of stay of the orders impugned till
disposal of the writ petition.
v. Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper.”
2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
3/40
of the present petition, as culled out from the records, are that
the petitioner is a member of the Bihar Municipal Service and
was, at the relevant time, functioning as the Executive Officer of
the Nagar Parishad, Sampatchak, a newly constituted urban
local body within the District of Patna. By Notification No.
1973 dated 26.07.2022 (Annexure-P/3), issued under Section
12(9) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, the petitioner, in his
capacity as Executive Officer, was also entrusted with the
powers and functions of the Administrator of the municipal
authority, pending the holding of the general election to the said
body.
3. It appears from the records that the Deputy
Chief Councillor of the Nagar Parishad, Sampatchak, together
with certain Ward Councillors, made a complaint addressed to
the Chief Minister levelling a series of allegations against the
petitioner touching upon the affairs of the Nagar Parishad. The
said complaint was received on the web portal of the Chief
Minister’s e-Compliance Dashboard, bearing QR Code No.
2023037409, and was forwarded by the Department of Urban
Development and Housing to the District Magistrate, Patna
(respondent no.8) under Departmental Letter No. 935 dated
06.02.2024 for an enquiry. The District Magistrate, Patna, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
4/40
turn, caused the enquiry to be conducted through the Additional
Collector-cum-District Public Grievance Redressal Officer,
Patna (respondent no.9), who submitted his enquiry report,
being Report No. 283 dated 12.04.2024, and the said report was
forwarded by the District Magistrate to the State Government
under cover of Letter No. 448 dated 13.06.2024.
4. Upon receipt of the said enquiry report, the
Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government
of Bihar, passed the two impugned orders. By the impugned
order contained in Letter No.4316 dated 30.06.2024 (Annexure-
P/1), issued under the signature of the Officer on Special Duty
of the Department, the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad,
Sampatchak (respondent no. 10) was directed to lodge an F.I.R.
against the petitioner and other persons stated to be at fault.
Further, by the impugned order contained in Memo No. 4315
dated 30.06.2024 (Annexure-P/2), issued under the signature of
the Under Secretary of the Department, the petitioner was
placed under suspension in exercise of the power conferred by
Rule 9(1) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Rules of 2005’), and a decision was taken to initiate
departmental proceedings against him, his headquarters during
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
5/40
the period of suspension was fixed, and it was further directed
that the charge-memo and the resolution for the departmental
proceedings be issued separately.
5. From the records, it appears that the
allegations against the petitioner are comprised in six heads,
namely :-
(i) Firstly, gross irregularity in the outsourced
sanitation work, including deployment of
workers in excess of the prescribed norms,
non-maintenance of biometric attendance, non-
deposit of E.P.F. and E.S.I.C. contributions,
and misappropriation by way of fictitious
attendance.
(ii) Secondly, payment to the outsourcing agency
without the recommendation of the Nodal
Officer-cum-City Manager.
(iii) Thirdly, irregularity and corruption in the
procurement of sanitation materials through
the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal.
(iv) Fourthly, illegal recovery of property tax and
holding tax.
(v) Fifthly, use of a vehicle for official purposes
contrary to the rules, and
(vi) Sixth, illegal appointments in the office of the
Nagar Parishad.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned
orders, the petitioner instituted the present writ petition on
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
6/40
30.08.2024. Vide order dated 05.09.2024, a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court directed that status quo be maintained in respect of
Annexures P/1 and P/2, and the respondent-State was granted
time to file a counter affidavit and to produce the records
relating to the approval for the suspension of the petitioner.
7. During the pendency of the writ petition, the
petitioner filed Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2025
seeking amendment of the prayer portion of the writ petition in
view of subsequent developments, which application was
allowed by order dated 16.09.2025, whereupon the following
prayers stood added to the writ petition:—
“i. For quashing the memo of charge framed
against the petitioner dated 03.09.2024
issued through Letter No. 7514 dated
01.10.2024 to the petitioner.
ii. For giving direction not to proceed further
on the basis of the said memo of charge
and declare whole action illegal, arbitrary
and without jurisdiction.”
8. By the same order dated 16.09.2025, this
Court, taking note of the issuance of Departmental Letter No.
7514 dated 01.10.2024 during the subsistence of the order of
status quo, had called upon the Officer on Special Duty of the
Department to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
7/40
be not drawn up against him. A show cause has been filed by the
said officer.
9. The petitioner has, thereafter, filed
Interlocutory Application No. 02 of 2025 seeking, in substance,
a declaration that no charge-sheet having been served upon him
within three months of the order of suspension dated
30.06.2024, the said order of suspension stood revoked with
effect from 01.10.2024 by operation of sub-Rule (7) of Rule 9 of
the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, and that he is, accordingly, entitled
to be taken back in service and to payment of his full salary with
effect from 01.10.2024 after adjustment of the subsistence
allowance already paid.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the
outset, submitted that the impugned orders are wholly without
jurisdiction inasmuch as they proceed upon an enquiry
conducted at the instance of the District Magistrate, Patna, who
is not clothed with any authority under the Bihar Municipal Act,
2007 to undertake an enquiry into the affairs of an urban local
body. It was argued that the scheme of Chapter VIII of the said
Act, and in particular Sections 65, 66 and 67 thereof, vests the
power of direction, control, inspection and consequential action
exclusively in the State Government, and that no other authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
8/40
can, of its own motion, embark upon an enquiry into the
functioning of a municipality. It is, therefore, the case of the
petitioner that the action of the District Magistrate in causing the
enquiry to be conducted and all consequent proceedings arising
therefrom are vitiated and cannot be sustained.
11. Elaborating upon the said submission, the
learned counsel took this Court through the relevant statutory
provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, it was pointed out
that Section 65 empowers the State Government to call for
records, returns and reports from a municipal authority. Further,
Section 66 empowers the State Government to depute its
officers, not below the rank of a Deputy Secretary or an Under
Secretary, as the case may be, to inspect or examine the affairs
of a municipality and to report thereon, and Section 67
empowers the State Government, after considering the records
called for under Section 65 or the report under Section 66, to
require the municipal authority to take action, subject to the
proviso that, unless immediate execution is considered
necessary, the municipal authority shall first be afforded an
opportunity of showing cause. It was contended that the
mandatory statutory sequence so prescribed was given a
complete go-by in the present case and that the entire action
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
9/40
runs contrary to the aforesaid statutory scheme.
12. It was further submitted that, even assuming
the enquiry to have been occasioned at the instance of the State
Government, the same is nonetheless vitiated for non-
compliance with the rank requirement prescribed by Section 66
of the Act. It was pointed out that, Section 66 permits inspection
or examination and report only by an officer not below the rank
of an Under Secretary to the State Government, whereas, in the
present case, the enquiry was conducted by the Additional
Collector-cum-District Public Grievance Redressal Officer,
Patna, who is not an officer of the requisite rank. It was,
therefore, urged that the enquiry report and all consequential
action founded thereupon are illegal and liable to be quashed on
this ground alone.
13. It was next submitted that the enquiry was
wholly ex parte and that the petitioner was at no stage issued
any notice or afforded any opportunity of hearing during the
course thereof. It was further submitted that the State
Government, instead of conducting its own enquiry through a
duly deputed officer of the rank as mandated by Section 66, had
mechanically acted upon the recommendation of the District
Magistrate and proceeded to suspend the petitioner and to direct
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
10/40
the lodging of an F.I.R. against him, without itself applying its
mind, without issuing the show cause contemplated by the
proviso to Section 67, and without affording the petitioner any
opportunity of being heard. Such a course, it was emphatically
argued, is in violation both of the express statutory safeguard
contained in the proviso to Section 67 of the Act and of the
principles of natural justice.
14. It is the next submission on behalf of the
petitioner that the impugned orders offend the Constitutional
scheme of municipal self-governance. Placing reliance upon the
Seventy-fourth Amendment to the Constitution of India and the
insertion of Part IX-A, it was argued that urban local bodies
have been recognized as the third tier of governance and clothed
with autonomy as institutions of self-Government, and that any
executive interference destructive of that autonomy is not only
impermissible but also unconstitutional. Reliance was placed
upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi
Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad & Ors., reported
as (2012) 4 SCC 407, wherein, though in the context of removal
of an elected office-bearer, it was held that the exercise of any
power having the effect of destroying a Constitutional
institution is not only outrageous but dangerous to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
11/40
democratic set-up of the country, and that any action taken in
violation of the procedure prescribed by law offends Article 21
of the Constitution and cannot be sustained. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) held as under:-
“Removal of an elected office-bearer
21. The municipalities have been conferred
constitutional status by amending the
Constitution vide the 74th Amendment Act,
1992 w.e.f. 1-6-1993. The municipalities
have also been conferred various powers
under Article 243-B of the Constitution.
22. Amendment in the Constitution by adding
Parts IX and IX-A confers upon the local
self-government a complete autonomy on
the basic democratic unit unshackled from
official control. Thus, exercise of any
power having effect of destroying the
Constitutional institution besides being
outrageous is dangerous to the democratic
set-up of this country. Therefore, an
elected official cannot be permitted to be
removed unceremoniously without
following the procedure prescribed by law,
in violation of the provisions of Article 21
of the Constitution, by the State by
adopting a casual approach and resorting
to manipulations to achieve ulterior
purpose. The Court being the custodian of
law cannot tolerate any attempt to thwart
the institution.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
12/40
23. The democratic set-up of the country has
always been recognised as a basic feature
of the Constitution, like other features e.g.
supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law,
principle of separation of powers, power of
judicial review under Articles 32, 226 and
227 of the Constitution, etc.
24. It is not permissible to destroy any of the
basic features of the Constitution even by
any form of amendment, and therefore, it is
beyond imagination that it can be eroded by
the executive on its whims without any
reason. The Constitution accords full faith
and credit to the act done by the executive
in exercise of its statutory powers, but they
have a primary responsibility to serve the
nation and enlighten the citizens to further
strengthen a democratic State.
25. Public administration is responsible for the
effective implication of the rule of law and
constitutional commands which effectuate
fairly the objective standard set for
adjudicating good administrative decisions.
However, wherever the executive fails, the
Courts come forward to strike down an
order passed by them passionately and to
remove arbitrariness and unreasonableness,
for the reason that the State by its illegal
action becomes liable for forfeiting the full
faith and credit trusted with it.”
15. Strong reliance was placed upon the
judgment of this Court dated 27.02.2023 in Kumar Ritik v. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
13/40
State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13223
of 2022, wherein, in respect of an enquiry conducted by the
District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram into the affairs of a
Nagar Parishad without authorization of the State Government,
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after noticing Sections 65 to
67 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, directed the Principal
Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, to
afford the petitioner therein an opportunity of putting forth his
defence and thereafter to take an independent view as to
whether any departmental proceeding was warranted. The Co-
ordinate Bench in Kumar Ritik (supra) held as under:-
“4. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the
power to make an enquiry/inspection is subject to
its authorization by the State Government and
deputation of officers for the said purpose,
however, in the present case, the District
Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram without any
authority has conducted an enquiry into the affairs
of the Nagar Parishad, Dehri and has also framed
charges in Praptra ‘क’ and has sent the charge-
sheet to the State Government for initiating a
departmental proceeding against the petitioner
herein which is contrary to the mandate of the
provisions contained under Section 66 of the Bihar
Municipal Act, 2007, nonetheless, it is
simultaneously submitted that in case the State
Government wishes to proceed ahead, it should
first give an opportunity to the petitioner to
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
14/40
explain his side of the story and after considering
the materials available on record, it should come
to a categorical finding as to whether initiation of
departmental proceeding is required or not, as far
as the petitioner is concerned.
5. Per contra, though the learned counsel for the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the
reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the present
case by submitting that gross irregularities have
been found in the process of allotment of tender
and the petitioner is also prima facie responsible
for the said irregularities, but he has not denied
the fact that the District Magistrate, Rohtas at
Sasaram was not authorized by the State
Government to make inspection or conduct an
enquiry, however, it is submitted that in case this
Court directs, the petitioner would definitely be
given an opportunity of hearing and after
considering all the materials available on record,
a conscious decision would be taken regarding
initiation of departmental proceedings qua the
petitioner herein.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and having considered the submissions
made by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner as also those made by the learned
counsel for the respondents, I deem it fit and
appropriate to direct the Principal Secretary,
Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna, i.e. the respondent
no.2 to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to
put forthwith his defence and after considering the
reply to be filed by the petitioner as also upon
consideration of the report submitted by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
15/40
District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, the
respondent no.2 shall take an independent view
of the matter, as to whether any departmental
proceeding is required to be initiated against the
petitioner herein or not.”
16. Reliance was equally placed upon the
judgment dated 01.07.2024 in Rajesh v. The State of Bihar &
Ors., Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18577 of 2023, wherein,
on materially similar facts concerning the Ramnagar Nagar
Parishad and an enquiry constituted by the District Magistrate,
West Champaran at Bettiah of his own volition, a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court reiterated the same principle, granted the
petitioner therein liberty to file his reply, and directed that no
coercive action be taken against him until the Principal
Secretary took an independent view in the matter. It was urged
that the impugned orders, having been passed in the teeth of the
binding directions contained in the aforesaid two decisions,
ought to be quashed on this short ground alone.
17. Next, it was submitted that a memo of charge
is stated to have been drawn up against the petitioner on
03.09.2024, that is, two days prior to the order of status quo
dated 05.09.2024, however, the same was forwarded to the
petitioner only under Departmental Letter No.7514 dated
01.10.2024, that is, after the passing of the order of status quo,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
16/40
with a direction to submit his written statement of defence. It
was contended that the communication of the memo of charge
and the continuation of the departmental proceeding, in the teeth
of the subsisting order of status quo, are illegal, arbitrary and
without jurisdiction.
18. The learned counsel next advanced a distinct
and independent challenge to the continuance of the order of
suspension. It was submitted that Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 9 of the
Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 mandates that a charge-sheet must be
framed within three months from the date of issuance of the
order of suspension, failing which, on the expiry of three
months, the order of suspension shall stand revoked, unless the
authority which issued the same, passes an order, for reasons to
be recorded in writing, renewing the suspension for a further
period, and that upon the expiry of the extended period, the
order of suspension shall stand revoked if the charge-sheet is not
framed. It was submitted that the effect of the said provision is
no longer res integra, and strength was drawn from the decision
of the Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Shekhar
Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported as 2008 SCC OnLine
Pat 1020 : (2008) 1 PLJR 731, wherein the Division Bench has
held as under:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
17/40
“2. Learned counsel for the appellant petitioner
states that he challenged the order of
suspension dated 3rd October, 2007, which
does not disclose that it is in contemplation
of any disciplinary enquiry to be initiated
against him and no charge-sheet has been
served against him, so far in fact. He
further submits that no further order of
extending the suspension order has been
made up till now.
3. The learned Single Judge has interpreted
the order along with materials placed by the
Respondents on record, an order in
contemplation of enquiry and dismissed the
writ petition.
4. While dismissing the writ petition, the
learned Single Judge directed for issuing
charge-sheet within the prescribed time
under Sub-Clause-7 of Rule 9 of Bihar
Government Servant (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.
5. In the facts and circumstances and in the
light of statements made by the learned
counsel for the appellant petitioner, we do
not propose to go into the merit of the order
dated 03.10.2007. Accepting the statement
of learned counsel for the appellant-
petitioner to be correct the suspension
order automatically comes to an end on
expiry of three months from the date of
order where no charge-sheet has been
issued before the expiry of three months or
no order extending the period of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
18/40
suspension has been made by a reasoned
order.
6. Since according to the learned counsel for
the appellant both things have not
happened, the suspension order has come to
an end automatically. However, in case
either of the condition has been satisfied
before 3rd January, 2008, the suspension
order shall remain in force.
7. In the circumstances the appeal stands
disposed of with the aforementioned
observation.”
19. It is the submission of the learned counsel
that the order of suspension having been issued on 30.06.2024,
the charge-sheet was required to be served upon the petitioner
on or before 30.09.2024, and no order renewing the suspension,
supported by reasons recorded in writing, having ever been
passed, the order of suspension lost its force upon the expiry of
three months, that is, with effect from 01.10.2024. It was
pointed out that although the memo of charge is stated to have
been drawn up on 03.09.2024, the same was not served upon the
petitioner within the said period. The petitioner, by his
representation dated 14.11.2024, categorically denied receipt of
Departmental Letter No.7514 dated 01.10.2024 as also of any
charge-sheet, and it was only under Letter No.8860 dated
21.11.2024 that the Officer on Special Duty, recording the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
19/40
objection of the petitioner, forwarded a copy of the approved
charge-sheet to the petitioner, followed by reminders, by which
time the order of suspension had long since stood vacated by
operation of law. It was, accordingly, submitted that the
petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with
consequential posting and to payment of his full salary with
effect from 01.10.2024.
20. Adverting to the allegations, the learned
counsel submitted that the petitioner, having been clothed with
the powers of Administrator by Notification No. 1973 dated
26.07.2022, was fully competent to authorize payment to the
outsourcing agency, and that no provision of the Bihar
Municipal Act, 2007 mandates the prior recommendation of the
Nodal Officer-cum-City Manager. As regards the procurement
of sanitation materials and the engagement of personnel, it was
submitted that, the Nagar Parishad being newly constituted and
acutely short of equipment and staff, the purchases and
engagements were duly authorized by resolutions of the Board
of the Nagar Parishad passed in its meeting dated 27.01.2023
and were effected after following the prescribed procedure and
on minimum wages. On the allegation of collection of property
and holding tax, it was submitted that such action was
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
20/40
undertaken in discharge of a statutory duty and in compliance
with successive directions of the State Government, including
for the purpose of availing grants of the Fifteenth Finance
Commission and, as regards the use of a vehicle, it was
submitted that, no official vehicle being available to the newly
created body, a vehicle was used at rates approved by the
District Administration.
21. Lastly, in sum, it was the submission of the
learned counsel that the impugned orders are without
jurisdiction, arbitrary and capricious, having been passed in
violation of Sections 65, 66 and 67 of the Bihar Municipal Act,
2007, the Seventy-fourth Constitutional Amendment, Article 21
of the Constitution of India, the principles of natural justice and
the binding precedents of this Court, and are, therefore, liable to
be quashed. Further it is submitted that, in any event, the order
of suspension dated 30.06.2024 having stood automatically
revoked under Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Bihar C.C.A.
Rules, 2005 with effect from 01.10.2024, the petitioner is
entitled to reinstatement, consequential posting and payment of
full salary from that date.
22. Per contra, the respondents have stoutly
resisted the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
21/40
of respondent nos. 2 to 7, it has been submitted that the action
impugned is neither suo motu nor without jurisdiction. It is
stated that a complaint against the petitioner, alleging serious
irregularities and corruption, was received through the web
portal of the Chief Minister’s E-Compliance Dashboard, bearing
QR Code No.2023037409, and was forwarded by the
Department to the District Magistrate, Patna under
Departmental Letter No. 935 dated 06.02.2024 for an enquiry
into the said complaint. It is asserted that the State Government,
being vested by Chapter VIII and Sections 65, 66 and 67 of the
Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 with the power of direction and
control over the municipalities, was fully competent to depute
the District Magistrate, and that the District Magistrate, did not
act of his own motion.
23. It is further submitted on behalf of the
answering respondents that the District Magistrate, Patna, in
turn, caused an in-depth enquiry to be conducted through the
Additional Collector Public Grievance Redressal-cum-District
Grievance Redressal Officer, Patna, who submitted a detailed
enquiry report, being Report No.283 dated 12.04.2024, running
into 427 pages together with enclosures, and the said report was
forwarded by the District Magistrate to the Department under
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
22/40
Letter No. 448 dated 13.06.2024. Thereafter, the competent
authority, after due examination of the report and the material
accompanying it, took an independent decision to proceed
against the petitioner by issuing the impugned orders, i.e.,
Memo No. 4315 and Letter No. 4316, both dated 30.06.2024.
24. The respondent-State has further set out the
findings recorded in the enquiry report, contending that the
allegations against the petitioner were, on enquiry, found to be
substantiated. In particular, it is submitted that, in respect of the
sanitation work, biometric attendance, deduction of E.P.F. and
segregation of waste were found not to have been carried out. In
respect of the procurement through the GeM portal, a separate
enquiry was recommended. Further, the recovery of property
and holding tax without the prior approval of the State
Government was found to be prima facie correct. The petitioner
was also found to have kept an unregistered vehicle for
administrative purposes and to have engaged one Sanjeev
Pandey, stated to be a dismissed employee of the Nagar
Panchayat, Silaw, on daily wages upon an important post
without following any procedure such as advertisement or
constitution of a selection committee. It is therefore argued by
the answering respondents, that such conduct of the petitioner is
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
23/40
violative of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Bihar Government
Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1976, and discloses misconduct,
negligence, arbitrariness and indiscipline on the part of the
petitioner.
25. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the
aforesaid enquiry, a memo of charge in ‘Prapatra Ka’ was
drawn up against the petitioner on 03.09.2024, and the petitioner
was thereafter called upon, by Departmental Letter No. 7514
dated 01.10.2024, to submit his written defence. Thus, it is
submitted that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity in the
departmental proceeding and there is no violation of the
principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the order
of suspension passed under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 2005 is an
interim measure in contemplation of the departmental
proceeding and not a punishment. It is categorically been
submitted with emphasis that the disciplinary jurisdiction of the
State over its own officers operates independently of, and is
unaffected by, the regulatory provisions of Sections 65 to 67 of
the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, which operate upon the
municipal authority as an institution. On these grounds, the
respondent-State has prayed that the writ petition, being devoid
of merit, be dismissed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
24/40
26. A counter affidavit has also been filed on
behalf of respondent no. 10, i.e., the Executive Officer, Nagar
Parishad, Sampatchak, wherein it has been submitted that the
answering respondent is a subordinate authority whose role and
participation in the matter is limited, and that whatever action
was taken against the petitioner was taken by the State
Government and its competent officers. It is submitted that, on
receipt of Letter No.4316 dated 30.06.2024, the answering
respondent informed the officer-in-charge of the concerned
police station and requested him to take necessary action in the
matter.
27. Heard and considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
28. Admittedly, the petitioner, a member of the
Bihar Municipal Service, was functioning as the Executive
Officer of the newly constituted Nagar Parishad, Sampatchak.
Upon a complaint received on the Chief Minister's e-
Compliance Dashboard and forwarded by the Department to the
District Magistrate, Patna by Letter No. 935 dated 06.02.2024,
the District Magistrate caused an enquiry to be made through
the Additional Collector-cum-District Public Grievance
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
25/40
Redressal Officer, whose report dated 12.04.2024 was
forwarded to the State Government by Letter No. 448 dated
13.06.2024. Acting upon that report, the State Government
passed the two impugned orders dated 30.06.2024, directing the
lodging of an F.I.R. and placing the petitioner under suspension
while deciding to initiate departmental proceedings against him.
29. The case of the petitioner, in substance, is in
three-folds, firstly, that the enquiry was not conducted by an
officer of the rank as mandated by Section 66 of the Bihar
Municipal Act, 2007 and was wholly ex parte, and could not,
therefore, form the foundation of any action. Secondly, that the
State Government acted upon the recommendation of the
District Magistrate mechanically, without issuing the show
cause as contemplated by the proviso to Section 67 and without
any independent application of mind. And thirdly, that the order
of suspension stood automatically revoked under Rule 9(7) of
the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and could not, in any event, be
continued indefinitely. The respondents, per contra, contend
that the District Magistrate was duly deputed by the State
Government, and the suspension under Rule 9(1) is a non-
punitive interim measure governed by the said Rules
independently of Sections 65 to 67. Further that the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
26/40
had full opportunity in the departmental proceeding, inasmuch
as, after framing of charge, show cause was issued to him.
30. The first and decisive question is whether the
enquiry on which the impugned orders rest answers the
requirements of the statute. Chapter VIII of the Bihar Municipal
Act, 2007 vests the power of superintendence over
municipalities in the State Government alone, and Section 66
permits it to depute an officer, not below the rank of a Deputy
Secretary or an Under Secretary to the State Government, as the
case may be, to inspect or examine the affairs of a municipality
and to report. Pertinently, the scheme admits of no intermediary,
the State Government must itself decide to cause the inspection
or examination, and an officer of the prescribed rank must carry
it out.
31. The respondents seek to source the authority
of the District Magistrate in Departmental Letter No.935 dated
06.02.2024. However, upon a careful perusal of the same, it is
clear that the said letter does not bear that character. Issued
under the signature of the Project Officer-cum-Deputy Director,
it does no more than forward the complaint received on the
Chief Minister's e-Compliance Dashboard to the District
Magistrate for necessary action and an action-taken report. It
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
27/40
neither is, nor purports to be, an independent decision of the
State Government to depute an officer under Section 66. Even
otherwise, the District Magistrate did not himself carry out the
enquiry but entrusted the exercise to the Additional Collector-
cum-District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Patna, which
is a sub-delegation which the statute does not permit, on the
settled principle of delegatus non potest delegare. The purported
deputation thus fails at every link of the chain, and the enquiry
stands reduced to one conducted by an officer whom the statute
does not recognize for the purpose.
32. The petitioner, moreover, is a member of the
Bihar Municipal Service. The District Magistrate occupies no
place in the disciplinary chain of the said service. The doctrine
that a preliminary fact-finding enquiry may be caused through
any officer can have no application where the legislature has
occupied the field with a specific statutory provision, that an
enquiry into the affairs of a municipality must conform to
Section 66, and the bar operates even where the person
ultimately proceeded against, is an officer of the municipality
and not an elected functionary. A disciplinary proceeding whose
sole foundation is an enquiry conducted in the teeth of the
statute is vitiated at its root, notwithstanding that the formal
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
28/40
orders which were issued by the competent departmental
authority.
33. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nazia
Bagum v. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 10912 of 2016,
decided on 23.01.2017) had held as under:-
“...The Court would also like to observe that even
though the basis for issuing notice to the petitioner
being the report forwarded by the District
Magistrate may technically not be vitiated in law,
but then, once a proceeding is initiated, before the
Government can form an opinion, it has to get an
enquiry done in accordance with Section 25(5) of
the Act, the requirement of the other provisions of
the Act, which in the present case would be Section
66 of the Act relating to the power of the State
Government to depute officers to make inspection
or examination, the requirement was that a full
fledged enquiry with proper notice to the petitioner,
by a person not below the rank of a Deputy
Secretary to the State Government was required,
and based upon such report, the matter was
required to be heard by the Government and a
decision taken. In this regard, the Court is tempted
to quote from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra)
in which it has been held as under:
“19. Further, the expression “misconduct”
has to be construed and understood in
reference to the subject-matter and context
wherein the term occurs taking into
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
29/40
consideration the scope and object of the
statute which is being construed.
Misconduct is to be measured in the terms
of the nature of misconduct and it should be
viewed with the consequences of
misconduct as to whether it has been
detrimental to the public interest.
xxxxx
34. In a democratic institution, like ours, the
incumbent is entitled to hold the office for
the term for which he has been elected
unless his election is set aside by a
prescribed procedure known to law or he is
removed by the procedure established under
law. The proceedings for removal must
satisfy the requirement of natural justice
and the decision must show that the
authority has applied its mind to the
allegations made and the explanation
furnished by the elected officebearer sought
to be removed.
35. The elected official is accountable to its
electorate because he is being elected by a
large number of voters. His removal has
serious repercussions as he is removed
from the post and declared disqualified to
contest the elections for a further stipulated
period, but it also takes away the right of
the people of his constituency to be
represented by him. Undoubtedly, the right
to hold such a post is statutory and no
person can claim any absolute or vested
right to the post, but he cannot be removed
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
30/40
without strictly adhering to the provisions
provided by the legislature for his removal
(Vide: Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, Mohan
Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rae
Bareily and Ram Beti v. District Panchayat
Raj Adhikari).
36. In view of the above, the law on the issue
stands crystallized to the effect that an
elected member can be removed in
exceptional circumstances giving strict
adherence to the statutory provisions and
holding the enquiry, meeting the
requirement of principles of natural justice
and giving an incumbent an opportunity to
defend himself, for the reason that removal
of an elected person casts stigma upon him
and takes away his valuable statutory right.
Not only the elected office-bearer but his
constituency/electoral college is also
deprived of representation by the person of
their choice.
37. A duly elected person is entitled to hold
office for the term for which he has been
elected and he can be removed only on a
proved misconduct or any other procedure
established under law like “No Confidence
Motion” etc. The elected official is
accountable to its electorate as he has been
elected by a large number of voters and it
would have serious repercussions when he
is removed from the office and further
declared disqualified to contest the election
for a further stipulated period.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
31/40
xxxxx
56. The explanation furnished by the appellant
for not holding the meeting and acceptance
of tender by the Council itself and not by
the appellant, has not been considered at
all. No reasoning has been given by the
statutory authority for reaching the
conclusions. We fail to understand as to on
what basis such a cryptic order imposing
such a severe punishment can be sustained
in the eye of law.
xxx
68. To conclude, we are of the considered
opinion and that too after appreciation of
the entire evidence on record that the first
charge proved against the appellant for not
calling the meeting of Council, did not
warrant the order of removal and the
explanation furnished by the appellant
could have been accepted. Other charges
could not be proved against the appellant in
view of the fact that the tenders at a higher
rate were accepted by the Council itself and
the appellant could not be held exclusively
reasonable for it”.
For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition
succeeds. The impugned order contained in Memo
No.3331 dated 26.05.2016 passed by the
respondent no. 2 is set aside. The Court has been
informed that during the interregnum period, the
respondent no. 8 has been elected to the post of
Chairman. Since the matter was pending in this
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
32/40
Court and there was no fault or laches on the part
of the petitioner and also in view of the settled
principle of lis pendens, all subsequent
events/actions, pursuant to setting aside of the
order impugned, have but necessarily to be set
aside and it is ordered accordingly.”
34. In the aforesaid decision of Nazia Bagum
(supra) an enquiry routed through the District Magistrate was
held not to satisfy Section 66. In Geeta Devi v. State of Bihar &
Ors. (CWJC No. 1063 of 2020), the forwarding of a Vigilance
Department report for action against, inter alia, the officers and
employees of a Nagar Panchayat was held to be beyond
jurisdiction and patently illegal. In Kumar Ritik (supra) and
Rajesh (supra), on facts indistinguishable from the present,
enquiries conducted at the instance of the District Magistrate
against Executive Officers were held contrary to the mandate of
Section 66, with the direction that the Principal Secretary afford
the officer an opportunity and take an independent view as to
whether any departmental proceeding was warranted at all.
35. In the present case, the manner in which the
State Government proceeded fares no better. The enquiry report
was forwarded to the Department on 13.06.2024, and on a
single day, i.e., 30.06.2024, the petitioner was suspended, a
decision to initiate a departmental proceeding was taken and a
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
33/40
direction to lodge an F.I.R. was issued, without the petitioner
having been heard at any stage of the wholly ex parte enquiry,
and without the show cause which the proviso to Section 67
obliges the State Government to issue to the municipal
authority, unless immediate execution is considered necessary.
An ex parte report of an officer not competent under the statute
is the very antithesis of the independent application of mind
which has been mandated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Kumar Ritik (Supra) and Rajesh (Supra) and also
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi
Yashwant Bhoir (supra). An action of such gravity which
neither satisfies natural justice nor demonstrates application of
mind to the allegations cannot be sustained.
36. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned
orders dated 30.06.2024, resting on the enquiry, which does not
conform to the mandate of Section 66, initiated at the instance
of an authority alien both to the scheme of Chapter VIII of the
Act and to the disciplinary structure governing the Bihar
Municipal Service, and passed in breach of the proviso to
Section 67 and of the principles of natural justice, cannot be
sustained.
37. Now, coming to the challenge founded upon
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
34/40
Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 9 of Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005, which
mandates that a charge-sheet be framed within three months of
the order of suspension, failing which the suspension shall stand
revoked, unless the authority which issued it, by an order
recording reasons in writing, renews it for a further period. The
respondents contend that the memo of charge was drawn up on
03.09.2024, i.e., within three months. The question, therefore, is
whether the mere drawing up of a charge-sheet, without its
service upon the delinquent, satisfies the Rule. In the considered
opinion of this Court, failure to supply the charge-sheet to the
delinquent fails to satisfy the requirement. A charge-sheet
acquires legal efficacy only upon its communication to the
delinquent, since it is service alone which enables him to know
the accusation against him and enables him to answer it. A
contrary construction would permit the authority to defeat the
very object of the Rule by drawing up a charge-sheet and
withholding it while the suspension lingers on. The direction of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v.
Union of India, reported as (2015) 7 SCC 291, is itself couched
in terms of service and in the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as under :-
"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a
suspension order should not extend beyond three
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
35/40
months if within this period the memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet is not served on the
delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum
of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned
order must be passed for the extension of the
suspension. ..."
38. The Division Bench of this Court in
Chandra Shekhar Prasad (supra) has likewise held that the
suspension order automatically comes to an end on the expiry of
three months where no charge-sheet has been issued to the
delinquent before such expiry and no reasoned order of
extension has been passed.
39. Tested on these principles, the memo of
charge, though stated to have been drawn up on 03.09.2024, was
admittedly not served upon the petitioner on or before
30.09.2024. Departmental Letter No.7514, by which it is stated
to have been forwarded, itself came to be issued only on
01.10.2024. Pertinently, the petitioner, by his representation had
categorically denied its receipt as also of any charge-sheet, and
it is only under Letter No.8860 dated 21.11.2024 that the Officer
on Special Duty, recording the objection of the petitioner,
forwarded a copy of the approved charge-sheet to him.
Significantly, the Department has itself, by Letter No.3619 dated
05.10.2025, cancelled Letter No.7514 together with all
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
36/40
reminders relatable thereto. No reasoned order renewing the
suspension was ever passed. The order of suspension, therefore,
stood revoked by operation of Rule 9(7) of the Bihar C.C.A.
Rules, 2005 with effect from 01.10.2024.
40. This Court in Ranjeet Kumar Rajak v. State
of Bihar, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 3169 has held as
under:-
“53. It is abundantly clear from the aforequoted
judgments that continued and repeated
suspension of the petitioner is impermissible.
Upon perusal of the impugned order by which
the petitioner was again suspended, this
Court finds that the respondent authorities
have failed to make out any justifiable reason
for keeping the petitioner under such
continued and repeated suspension besides
the bald statement that there have been
serious disciplinary proceedings pending
against the petitioner, more-so when no
progress is there in the aforesaid disciplinary
proceedings. The respondents have
themselves flouted the stipulated time frame
set for concluding these proceedings. They
have also failed to carry out periodic
review/assessment of the suspension which is
in complete violation of the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar
Choudhary (supra).
54. The power to suspend is inherent in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
37/40
Government, however, the exercise of such
power is not unfettered and can not be
exercised in an unreasonable and arbitrary
manner. The suspension is an instrument to
ensure fairness and propriety of the
disciplinary proceedings, but a prolonged,
repeated and indefinite suspension absorbs
punitive character. Suspension which is
intended to be an interim measure can not be
permitted to become de-facto penalty /
punishment that too, sans the guilt even being
established.”
41. Therefore, in the present case, the
continuance of the suspension cannot be countenanced.
Protracted suspension was deprecated as punitive by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and
in State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, IPS, reported as
(2018) 17 SCC 677. This Court in Ranjeet Kumar Rajak
(supra) has held that a continued suspension, unsupported by
recorded reasons and unaccompanied by periodic review,
assumes a punitive character. The petitioner has remained under
suspension since 30.06.2024, i.e., for nearly two years, without
any periodic review or contemporaneous reasons, the
suspension has, therefore, become punitive and is unsustainable.
42. In the result, on the one hand, the procedure
adopted against the petitioner being contrary to Sections 66 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
38/40
67 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and to the principles of
natural justice, and on the other hand, the order of suspension
having stood revoked by operation of Rule 9(7) of the Rules of
2005 and having, in any event, assumed a punitive character, the
impugned orders contained in Letter No. 4316 and Memo No.
4315, both dated 30.06.2024, cannot be sustained and are,
accordingly, quashed and set aside together with all
consequential orders including the memo of charge dated
03.09.2024.
43. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to
reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with consequential
posting. The order of suspension having stood revoked with
effect from 01.10.2024. The petitioner shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits in accordance with law, after adjustment
of the subsistence allowance, if any, already paid to him.
Consequential benefits shall be computed and paid to the
petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.
44. It shall, however, be open to the respondents
to proceed against the petitioner afresh, if so advised, strictly in
accordance with the statutory scheme contained in Sections 65
to 67 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and after affording him a
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
39/40
reasonable opportunity of hearing.
45. In view of the quashing of Letter No. 4316
dated 30.06.2024, no further step shall be taken on the strength
thereof. Any F.I.R. stated to have been registered in pursuance
of the said letter is concerned, it shall be open to the petitioner
to seek such remedies in respect thereof as are available to him
in law before the appropriate forum.
46. Adverting, lastly, to the show cause filed by
the Officer on Special Duty pursuant to the order dated
16.09.2025, it is stated in the show-cause that the memo of
charge had been drawn up on 03.09.2024, i.e., prior to the order
of status quo dated 05.09.2024 and the Letter No.7514 dated
01.10.2024 came to be issued inadvertently. Further upon legal
advice, the Department, by Letter No.3619 dated 05.10.2025,
had cancelled the said letter and all reminders relatable thereto.
The answering respondent has tendered an unconditional and
unqualified apology.
47. Taking note of the corrective steps taken and
the apology tendered, this Court is satisfied that no wilful or
deliberate disobedience of the order dated 05.09.2024 is made
out. The apology is accepted and the proceeding initiated by the
order dated 16.09.2025 is, accordingly, dropped.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13227 of 2024 dt.30-06-2026
40/40
48. The present writ petition is allowed in the
above terms.
49. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any,
stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A.
Uploading Date 06.07.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.