Patna High Court
Bipin KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The dismissal and subsequent review orders were set aside as they were passed in violation of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and the principles of natural justice.
Summary
The petitioner, a senior government servant in the Bihar Department of Agriculture, challenged his dismissal dated 06‑11‑2014 and a subsequent review order dated 08‑03‑2021, alleging that the departmental enquiry was conducted without any witness examination, relied on conjecture, and violated the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and principles of natural justice. The charge memo alleged his presence at a hotel where officials were caught taking bribes, but no bribe was recovered from him and the enquiry report itself noted no recovery. The petitioner argued that the disciplinary authority ignored his reply, pre‑decided the penalty, and failed to apply Rule 18(4) requiring independent consideration of the enquiry report and representation. The State contended that the proceedings were lawful and the penalty proportionate. The Court examined the evidence, found no material to substantiate the charge of misconduct, noted the absence of any witness testimony, and held that the disciplinary authority acted in gross violation of Rules 14(xi), 18(4), 19 and the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside both the dismissal order and the review order and directed the authorities to determine the petitioner’s dues.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal order dated 06‑11‑2014 and the review order dated 08‑03‑2021 were passed in violation of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
- Whether the departmental enquiry complied with the procedural requirements of natural justice, including the right to be heard and examination of evidence.
- Whether the charge memo and the findings of the disciplinary authority were consistent and supported by admissible evidence.
- Whether the penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
- Whether the authority had jurisdiction to impose dismissal without prior approval of the Bihar Public Service Commission as required under the Rules.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 — s. Rule 14(xi), Rule 18(4), Rule 19, Rule 21, Rule 24(2)
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Subjects
- departmental enquiry
- natural justice
- dismissal
- Bihar CCA Rules
- procedural fairness
- government servant
- review order
- penalty proportionality
- evidence
- charge memo
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1430 of 2022
======================================================
Bipin Kumar Son of Sita Ram Singh, resident of Kazichak, P.O. Ramnathpur,
Via Sarmera, P.S. Sarmera, District-Nalanda, presently residing at Ram
Krishnanagar, west of Shivaji Chowk, Near V.V. Singh House, House No.
H/4, P.O. New Jaganpura, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Bihar.
2. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Bihar.
3. Then Director (Administration) cum Conducting Officer
4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Bihar.
5. The Under Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Surya Nilambari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anant Kr. Singh (SC15)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 06-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief/s :-
a) For quashing the notification
dated 8.3.2021 issued under the signature of
the Secretary, Department of Agriculture,
Bihar whereby and whereunder the review
memorial preferred by the Petitioner
(District Planning and Evaluation Officer,
Darbhanga cum In charge Junior Plant
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
2/23
Protection Officer, Dharbhanga) under the
aegis of the order of the Hon'ble High Court,
Patna dated 27.8.2018 in C.W.J.C No.
5278/2015 against the order of dismissal
dated 6.11.2014, was rejected thereby
confirming the said order of dismissal.
b) For quashing the notification
dated 6.11.2014 issued under the signature of
the Deputy Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Bihar whereby and whereunder
the Petitioner was dismissed from service in
view of the departmental proceedings
conducted against him, in light of Rule 14
(xi) Bihar Government Servant Rules,
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
2005.
c) For grant of consequential
reliefs, as the petitioner retired from service
on 31.01.2016.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the
impugned notifications dated 06.11.2014 and 08.03.2021 as
being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Bihar Government
Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as “Bihar CCA Rules, 2005”) as well as
the principles of natural justice.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
3/23
initially appointed as Junior Statistical Assistant in the year
1978 and, after completion of 30 years of service, was promoted
to the post of District Planning and Evaluation Officer,
Darbhanga under the District Agriculture Office. In the year
2010, he was also given additional charge of Junior Plant
Protection Officer, Darbhanga. While functioning in the said
capacity, a memo of charge dated 16.05.2011 was issued
alleging that the petitioner was found present in Room No.104
of Arvind Hotel, Darbhanga, along with certain officials who
were caught accepting bribe during a vigilance raid.
Significantly, the charge did not allege that the petitioner
himself demanded or accepted any bribe, nor was any bribe
recovered from him. The allegation was founded merely on an
inference of complicity arising out of his presence in the hotel
room.
5. Learned counsel further submits that an FIR under
the Prevention of Corruption Act was lodged against the
petitioner, pursuant to which he was taken into custody and later
released on bail. However, the departmental proceedings
culminated in an enquiry report dated 11.01.2013, wherein the
Enquiry Officer categorically hold that no bribe or money was
recovered from the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer further noted
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
4/23
that the recovery of an official camera from the petitioner
corroborated his explanation that he had gone to the hotel to
apprise his superior officers of the implementation of official
programmes. While some suspicion was expressed regarding
booking of a hotel room on a holiday, the Enquiry Officer
simultaneously observed that the petitioner appeared to have
acted under instructions of his superior officers.
6. Learned counsel further submits that despite the
aforesaid findings, which do not establish any misconduct on
the part of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer returned a vague
and self-contradictory conclusion that the charge stood proved
to the extent that the petitioner had allegedly assisted his
superior officers in the act of bribery. This conclusion, it is
urged, is wholly unsupported by evidence and travels beyond
the charge framed against the petitioner, which never alleged
facilitation or assistance in bribery.
7. Learned counsel emphatically submits that the
departmental enquiry is vitiated as no oral or documentary
evidence whatsoever was adduced by the department. No
witnesses were examined, nor were any documents proved in
accordance with law. The findings in the enquiry report are
based merely on conjectures, opinions, and submissions of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
5/23
Presenting Officer, which cannot substitute legal evidence. Even
under the standard of preponderance of probabilities applicable
to departmental proceedings, some evidence is indispensable,
which is completely absent in the present case.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the second
show cause notice dated 19.03.2014 itself reflects a closed and
biased mind, as the Disciplinary Authority recorded that the
grave charges stood proved and that a major penalty had already
been decided. Such a notice, according to learned counsel,
defeats the very purpose of a second show cause and violates
the doctrine of audi alteram partem. The petitioner submitted
his reply dated 12.04.2014 within time, which was admittedly
received by the department on 16.04.2014, yet the same was not
considered on the specious ground of delay. Learned counsel
points out that the impugned notification dated 06.11.2014
dismissing the petitioner from service is non-speaking, cryptic,
and demonstrably perverse. The Disciplinary Authority
proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the petitioner was
caught red-handed accepting bribe, an allegation neither
contained in the charge memo nor borne out from the enquiry
report. The order further discloses non-application of mind, as
even the opinion of the Bihar Public Service Commission was
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
6/23
not in favour of imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal.
9. It is further submitted that the appeal preferred by
the petitioner was rejected on technical grounds, and thereafter,
pursuant to the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by this Court in
CWJC No. 5278 of 2015, the matter was remanded for review.
The petitioner accordingly filed a detailed review memorial
highlighting the fundamental defects in the enquiry and
disciplinary proceedings. However, the same was rejected by the
impugned notification dated 08.03.2021 in a perfunctory
manner, without addressing the core issues raised by the
petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the reviewing authority
itself acknowledged that the proposal for dismissal had been
approved at the highest level on 04.05.2014, i.e., prior to
independent consideration of the petitioner’s reply to the
enquiry report. This, according to learned counsel, is a clear
violation of Rule 18(4) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, which
mandates the Disciplinary Authority to independently consider
the enquiry report and the delinquent’s representation before
imposing a major penalty. The decision to dismiss the petitioner
was thus a foregone conclusion, rendering the entire exercise an
empty formality.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the charge
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
7/23
itself is vague and does not constitute “misconduct” in law.
Mere presence in the company of superior officers, without
proof of wrongful intent or moral turpitude, cannot amount to
misconduct warranting a major penalty. The petitioner was
acting under instructions of his superiors, a fact acknowledged
in the enquiry report itself.
11. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that even assuming the allegations to be correct, the penalty of
dismissal from service imposed upon a government servant with
an unblemished career of over three decades is shockingly
disproportionate. It is pointed out that one of the co-accused
officers has retired and is receiving substantial retiral benefits,
which further demonstrates arbitrariness and unequal treatment.
12. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays
that the impugned notifications dated 06.11.2014 and
08.03.2021 be quashed and the petitioner be granted all
consequential benefits.
13. In support of her argument, learned counsel for
the petitioner relied on the judgment rendered in the case of
Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors.
reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427 and submits that a show cause
notice issued by a quasi-judicial proceeding under a statutory
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
8/23
regulation then, it promises to give the person/delinquent a
reasonable opportunity of defence. Here in the present case, no
such reasonable opportunity of defence has been provided to
the petitioner. Counsel submits that it is the fundamental
principle that the justice must not only be done, but it must
eminently appear to be done and has applicability in quasi-
judicial proceeding.
13.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied
on the judgment rendered in the case of Laxmi Devi Sugar
Mills Ltd. Vs. Nand Kishore Singh reported in AIR 1957 SC 7
and submitted that the charge memo did not enclose or refer to
any supporting documents. It was further contended that the
charges levelled against the petitioner were never proved, as the
maker of the allegations was never examined, nor was any
opportunity of cross-examination afforded to the petitioner.
Learned counsel submitted that, in the absence of such
substantive material and procedural safeguards, the Enquiry
Officer could not have legally considered such materials or
arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the
charges levelled against him.
13.2 Counsel further relied on the judgment rendered
in the case of Brij Bihari Singh Vs. Bihar State Financial
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
9/23
Corporation & Ors. reported in (2015) 17 SCC 541 and
submitted that it is well settled that a person who is required to
answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the
evidence by which the accusation is sought to be supported.
The delinquent employee must be afforded a fair opportunity to
hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine
the witnesses who depose in support thereof. Learned counsel
submitted that, in the present case, not a single witness was
examined in support of the charges, nor was any opportunity of
cross-examination provided to the petitioner.
13.3 Learned counsel further relied on the judgment
rendered in the case of Dr. Janardan Prasad Sukumar Vs. The
State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary & Ors. reported in
2025 (1) PLJR 625 and submitted that a delinquent employee
must be afforded a fair opportunity to hear the evidence
adduced in support of the charges and to cross-examine the
witnesses examined therein, failing which the principles of
natural justice stand violated. Learned counsel submitted that,
in the present case, neither was any witness examined in
support of the charges nor was any opportunity of cross-
examination afforded to the petitioner. It was further submitted
that, in view of these facts and circumstances, the charge
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
10/23
memo, the punishment order, as well as the review order are
liable to be quashed and set aside.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits
that the writ petition is devoid of merit and has been filed with
an intent to reopen a concluded disciplinary proceeding. For
proper appreciation of the matter, learned counsel has placed
the relevant facts in a brief by submitting that the petitioner was
initially appointed as Junior Statistical Assistant in the year
1978 and was subsequently promoted to the post of District
Planning and Evaluation Officer, Darbhanga under the District
Agriculture Office. In the year 2010, he was also entrusted with
the additional charge of Junior Plant Protection Officer (JPPO),
Darbhanga. While functioning as In-charge JPPO, the petitioner
was served with a memo of charge dated 16.05.2011 issued by
the Agriculture Department. Learned counsel submits that a
bare perusal of the charge memo would demonstrate that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner were serious in nature.
A regular departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance
with the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 2005. Upon completion of the enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed enquiry report wherein the
charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
11/23
15. Learned counsel further submits that after due
examination of the enquiry report and application of mind, the
Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Bihar issued a
second show cause notice vide Letter No. 82 dated 19.03.2014,
calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within
fifteen days. The petitioner submitted his reply dated
12.04.2014, seeking exoneration from the charges. Thereafter,
vide Notification No. 411 dated 06.11.2014 issued under the
signature of the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Department, the
petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from
service after obtaining approval of the Cabinet. Learned counsel
submits that the said notification records that the petitioner
failed to submit his reply to the second show cause notice
within the prescribed period. Subsequently, the proposal for
punishment was forwarded to the Bihar Public Service
Commission for concurrence; however, the Commission did not
concur with the proposed punishment. Thereafter, an opinion
was sought from the General Administration Department
(GAD), which, with reference to Circular No. 2609 dated
13.09.2006 and Rule 21 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, opined
that the Administrative Department itself was competent to take
a decision in the matter. In view of the said opinion, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
12/23
Department proceeded to impose a major penalty as prescribed
under Rule 14(xi) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, after
obtaining approval of the Cabinet.
16. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner earlier challenged the dismissal order by filing CWJC
No. 5278 of 2015 and also preferred a review application under
Rule 24(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The writ petition was
disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.08.2018, directing
the competent authority to consider and decide the review
application on its own merits. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of
this Court, the petitioner’s review application was duly
considered. The petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of
hearing and appeared before the authority on 11.12.2018 and
08.01.2019, where he submitted his defence. Upon careful
consideration of the entire material on record and after granting
personal hearing to the petitioner, the review application was
rejected by the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Bihar, vide
Notification No. 129 dated 08.03.2021. Counsel further submits
that two other officers, namely Manoj Kumar, Assistant
Agriculture Director (Surveillance), Bihar, Patna, and Satya
Narayan Mochi, Joint Director of Agriculture (Plant
Protection), were also awarded against departmentally on
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
13/23
similar charges and were awarded punishment, thereby negating
any allegation of discrimination. Counsel for the State further
submits that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner
were conducted in accordance with law, after following due
procedure, and the punishment imposed does not call for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
17. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the
records, it transpires to this Court that the charge memo was
issued to the petitioner. In the charge memo, it is contended that
the petitioner was present along with the persons who were
caught taking bribe. From the petitioner’s possession, one
mobile and Sony Camera was recovered. This shows the
alleged involvement of petitioner in corruption due to his
presence in the hotel room where the officials were nabbed
taking bribe. For that, FIR has also been lodged bearing Town
(Darbhanga) P.S. Case No.86 of 2011/Special Case No. 8 of
2011. The said criminal case is still pending. The petitioner was
suspended and he was directed to file explanation. It also
transpires that the said charges resulted into departmental
proceeding, but in the enquiry, no witnesses were examined nor
any document was produced by the Presenting Officer. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
14/23
finding of the enquiry report states that bribe money was not
recovered from the petitioner. The recovery of official camera
from the petitioner’s possession demonstrates that he had
intended to show the execution of the government programme
to his superiors. Booking of a room on holiday by the petitioner
raised suspicion against him and the trap memo indicates that
the petitioner was present and caught from the room of the
hotel. But, the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the above
material proved the charge of alleged corruption of assisting the
officials who had come from the headquarter in the act of
bribery. Second show cause was issued to the petitioner and the
Disciplinary Authority upon analysis of the enquiry report
accepted the grave allegation of misconduct against the
petitioner to have established for which a major penalty was
decided to be imposed. In-spite of the fact that the petitioner
submitted explanation and taken the plea that enquiry was
conducted in complete violation of relevant rules and finding of
the guilt was based on surmise and conjecture, without being
substantiated by the evidence. The order of dismissal was
passed on 06.11.2014.
18. It also transpires to this Court that upon the order
of punishment, the petitioner filed writ petition namely,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
15/23
C.W.J.C. No. 5278 of 2015 which was resulted into liberty to
prefer review vide order dated 27.08.2018. The review petition
was also dismissed on 08.03.2021. Then the petitioner preferred
the present writ petition challenging both the orders i.e. the
punishment order dated 06.11.2014 and order of reviewing
authority dated 08.03.2021. The allegations made in the charge
memo and the findings in the punishment order did not match.
As in the charge memo, it is an allegation that the petitioner
was present with other delinquents from whose possession
money has been recovered. Presence with them in the hotel
room shows the involvement of the petitioner in the present
case. But in the finding of the Disciplinary
Authority/punishment order, it has come that arresting has been
made due to acceptance & recovery of the bribe by the trap
team, which are at all not a correct finding. Because, the
allegation in charge memo did not speak about recovery of
money from petitioner, and enquiry report has categorically
concluded that no recovery was made from the delinquent
petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment
on the basis of other charge, the said charge shown in
punishment order is lacking in the charge memo.
19. The another point on which this Court is surprised
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
16/23
that with a view to prove the allegation of charge, not a single
witness has been examined, even the complainant has not been
examined. The said finding of the Disciplinary Authority is
contrary to the allegation of charge in the memo and in this
way, there is a gross violation of Rule 19 of Bihar CCA Rules,
2005. In addition to that, in the enquiry, not a single witness has
been examined nor any opportunity of cross examination has
been provided. The said action has been made by the
Disciplinary Authority which is in complete violation of one of
the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported
in (2009) 2 SCC 570, wherein it has been held in paragraph
nos. 14 to 16 which states 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
17/23
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.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the
only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been
placed by the enquiry officer was the purported
confession made by the appellant before the police.
According to the appellant, he was forced to sign
on the said confession, as he was tortured in the
police station. The appellant being an employee of
the Bank, the said confession should have been
proved. Some evidence should have been brought
on record to show that he had indulged in stealing
the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no
direct evidence. Even there was no indirect
evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that
the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find
him guilty as otherwise he would not have
proceeded on the basis that the offence was
committed in such a manner that no evidence was
left.
16. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [AIR
1964 SC 364 : (1964) 4 SCR 718] it was held: (AIR
pp. 369-70, paras 22-23)
“22. … The two infirmities are separate and
distinct though, conceivably, in some cases both
may be present. There may be cases of no evidence
even where the Government is acting bona fide; the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
18/23
said infirmity may also exist where the Government
is acting mala fide and in that case, the conclusion
of the Government not supported by any evidence
may be the result of mala fides but that does not
mean that if it is proved that there is no evidence to
support the conclusion of the Government, a writ
of certiorari will not issue without further proof of
mala fides. That is why we are not prepared to
accept the learned Attorney General's argument
that since no mala fides are alleged against the
appellant in the present case, no writ of certiorari
can be issued in favour of the respondent.
23. That takes us to the merits of the
respondent's contention that the conclusion of the
appellant that the third charge framed against the
respondent had been proved, is based on no
evidence. The learned Attorney General has
stressed before us that in dealing with this
question, we ought to bear in mind the fact that the
appellant is acting with the determination to root
out corruption, and so, if it is shown that the view
taken by the appellant is a reasonably possible
view this Court should not sit in appeal over that
decision and seek to decide whether this Court
would have taken the same view or not. This
contention is no doubt absolutely sound. The only
test which we can legitimately apply in dealing
with this part of the respondent's case is, is there
any evidence on which a finding can be made
against the respondent that Charge 3 was proved
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
19/23
against him? In exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot
consider the question about the sufficiency or
adequacy of evidence in support of a particular
conclusion. That is a matter which is within the
competence of the authority which deals with the
question; but the High Court can and must enquire
whether there is any evidence at all in support of
the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the
whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted
as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge
in question is proved against the respondent? This
approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will
take the evidence as it stands and only examine
whether on that evidence legally the impugned
conclusion follows or not. Applying this test, we
are inclined to hold that the respondent's grievance
is well founded, because, in our opinion, the
finding which is implicit in the appellant's order
dismissing the respondent that Charge 3 is proved
against him is based on no evidence.”
20. It is surprising for this Court as to how the
Disciplinary Authority reached on the conclusion that the
petitioner was in possession of the money, whereas, the Enquiry
Officer has categorically held that no recovery has been made
from the petitioner’s possession.
21. It transpires to this Court that there is gross
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
20/23
violation of principles of natural justice in the present case. The
Disciplinary Authority is agreed on the findings of the enquiry
report. But, the reasoning assigned by him is wrong and against
the observation of the Enquiry Officer. The said allegation has
been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, which is in gross
violation of Rule 19 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. As, Rule 19
of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 is very much clear that once the
Disciplinary Authority decides to hold an enquiry in the manner
laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 17, then he has to
follow the procedure of Disciplinary Authority strictly in
accordance with Rule 17 and not according to Rule 19 of the
Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
22. The judgment on which the counsel for the
petitioner relied i.e. in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private
Limited (supra), is applicable up to the extent that in a quasi-
judicial proceeding under statutory regulation, the delinquent
has to be provided a reasonable opportunity of defence.
Another judgment on which the counsel for the petitioner relied
i.e. Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), this judgment shall
not apply in the present case due to the reason that this case has
been dealt with the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
Act (1946) and it has no application in the present case.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
21/23
Another judgment on which the counsel for the petitioner relied
i.e. in the case of Brij Bihari Singh (supra), this judgment is
applicable in the present case due to the reason mentioned in
paragraph no.9 of the said judgment which is quoted herein
below:-
“It is well settled that a person who is required
to answer a charge imposed should know not
only the accusation but also the testimony by
which the accusation is supported. The
delinquent must be given fair chance to hear
the evidence in support of the charge and to
cross-examine the witnesses who prove 9 the
charge. The delinquent must also be given a
chance to rebut the evidence led against him. A
departure from this requirement violates the
principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the
materials brought on record pointing out the
guilt are required to be proved. If the enquiry
report is based on merely ipse dixit and also
conjecture and surmises, it cannot be
sustained in law.”
23. The judgment of Dr. Janardan Prasad Sukumar
(supra) is also applicable in the present case, as the disciplinary
proceeding was attended with mala fide action of the
Disciplinary Authority reeks of a design to somehow inflict
punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner where the violation
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
22/23
of natural justice has been made and the present petitioner has
been victimized, in-spite of the fact that no recovery of money
has been made from his possession.
24. This Court on the point of the respondent’s plea
that two other persons have been proceeded in criminal case as
well as departmental proceeding and the said two persons were
punished, in this regard, it is replied in the rejoinder that one of
the delinquent was given punishment of removal from the
service and another was punished with the punishment of 10%
deduction in the pension and from those two persons, the
recovery of money has taken place. But from the possession of
the petitioner, no money was recovered. In the opinion of the
Court, the violation of principles of natural justice has been
made. Therefore, the case of two delinquents shall not apply in
the present case due to the reasons mentioned above.
25. This Court, therefore, set aside the findings of the
enquiry report dated 11.01.2013 (Annexure-2), order passed by
the Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Bihar
contained in Memo No. 411 dated 06.11.2014 (Annexure-5) as
well as order passed by the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Bihar contained in Memo No. 129 dated
08.03.2021 (Annexure-8). The respondent authorities are
Patna High Court CWJC No.1430 of 2022 dt. 06-01-2026
23/23
directed to take a decision on the issue of the petitioner’s
entitlement to payment/dues arising out of the setting aside of
the order of punishment, within three months from the date of
production of a receipt/copy of this order.
26. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation and
direction, the present writ petition stands allowed.
27. Interlocutory application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 17/12/2025
Uploading Date 07/01/2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…