Patna High Court

Suresh KumarversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors

Decided: 29 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: PARTHA SARTHY

Holding

The dismissal and subsequent appellate orders are set aside as the departmental inquiry was a case of no evidence and violated natural justice.

Summary

The petitioner, a revenue clerk, was caught taking a bribe in a trap case and faced departmental proceedings that led to his dismissal under Rule‑14(xi) of the Bihar Government Servant Rules. He appealed the dismissal, but the Divisional Commissioner and the Joint Director rejected his appeals. The petitioner argued that the inquiry violated natural justice as he was not given an opportunity to cross‑examine witnesses and no documentary evidence was proved, citing Roop Singh Negi and Devendra Prasad judgments. The court held that the departmental inquiry lacked proper evidence and breached the principles of natural justice, rendering the dismissal and subsequent appellate orders unsustainable. Consequently, the writ was allowed, the dismissal set aside, and the petitioner reinstated with back wages and other benefits.

Issues considered

Whether the departmental inquiry complied with the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to cross‑examine witnesses.
Whether the evidence adduced (witness statements and FIR) suffices as proof in a disciplinary proceeding.
Whether the dismissal order under Rule‑14(xi) of the Bihar Government Servant Rules is legally sustainable.
Whether the appellate and revision orders rejecting the petitioner's challenge should be set aside.

Subjects

departmental inquiry
natural justice
dismissal
reinstatement
burden of proof
evidence
Bihar civil service
Rule 14
cross‑examination

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1494 of 2017
======================================================
Suresh Kumar Son of late Tuni Prasad Singh Resident of Village- Jai
Prakashpur, P.O. and P.S.- Noor Sarai, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Joint Director, Agriculture Ganana, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Nalanda at Bihar Sarif.
7. The Circle Officer, Hilsa, District- Nalanda.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.N.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Mukumd Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Md. Faiz Ahmad, AC to GP- 14
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 29-01-2026

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for

the following reliefs:

“1. i) For quashing of the
office order of the Principal Secretary,
Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Bihar, Patna contained
in memo no. 1131 dated 14.10.2016
(Annexure-10) issued under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
2/14

signature of the Joint Director,
Agriculture Ganana, Revenue and
Land Reforms Department, Bihar,
Patna, whereby and where under the
revision filed against the order dated
29.07.2015 (annexure-9) passed in
Service Appeal Case No. 246/2014 by
the respondent Divisional
Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna
challenging the dismissal order
contained in Memo No. 292 dated
31.01.2014 (annexure-8) of the
respondent Collector-cum-District
Magistrate, Nalanda has been
rejected.
ii) For quashing of the order
dated 29.07.2015 (annexure-9) passed
in Service Appeal Case No. 246/2014
by the respondent Divisional
Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna
whereby the the dismissal order
contained in Memo No. 292 dated
31.01.2014 (annexure-8) of the
Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Nalanda has been rejected.
iii) For quashing of the
order contained in Memo No. 292
dated 31.01.2014 (annexure-8) of the
Collector -cum-District Magistrate,
Nalanda whereby and whereunder, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
3/14

petitioner has been dismissed from
service under Rule-14(xi) of Bihar
Government Servant (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and
its amended Rules.
iv) For issuance of direction
commanding the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner in service from
the date of dismissal with all the
consequential benefits and back
wages of the period from the date of
dismissal to the date of reinstatement.
v) For any other relief or
reliefs for which the petitioner is
found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case for the meet
of justice.”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that while he

was at the relevant time posted as revenue clerk in Circle Hilsa

in the district of Nalanda, the petitioner was caught taking bribe

in a trap case for which Vigilance P.S. Case no. 7 of 2012

(Special Case no. 9 of 2012) was registered and he was taken

into custody. The petitioner was subsequently enlarged on bail.

4. An inquiry was started against the petitioner for

which memo of charge in prapatra ‘ka’ (Annexure-2) was served

on him with the charge that on 25.1.2012 the petitioner, a
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
4/14

Rajaswa Karamchari, was caught taking bribe of Rs.5,000/- and

he was taken into custody by the Vigilance Investigation

Bureau. He was sent in judicial custody to the Adarsh Jail, Beur,

Patna.

5. The petitioner filed his reply to the charges and the

inquiry proceeded. The Enquiry Report dated 29.8.2012

(Annexure-5) was submitted by the Conducting Officer, a copy

of which was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner

submitted his reply to the same.

6. The respondent authorities i.e. the District

Magistrate, Nalanda came out with an order of punishment

dated 31.1.2014 dismissing the petitioner from service. The

appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Divisional

Commissioner, Patna Division on 29.7.2015 and the revision

filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the Principal

Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar by his

order dated 14.10.2016.

7. It is submitted by Mr. Shrinandan Prasad Singh,

learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that on

perusal of the memo of charges in prapatra ‘ka’ brought on

record as Annexure-2 to the writ application, it would transpire

that while the allegation is of the petitioner being caught taking
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
5/14

bribe of Rs.5,000/- on 25.1.2012, however when the inquiry

proceeded, from the contents of the inquiry report it would

transpire that the inquiry proceedings dealt with three charges

against the petitioner. It is further submitted that on perusal of

the inquiry report, the so called informant of the criminal case

who is said to have been examined, however neither any

intimation was given to the petitioner of his examination nor

was the petitioner given any opportunity to cross-examine him.

Admittedly no document was either produced, marked exhibit

or proved by any of the witness in course of inquiry. Thus

placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Roop Singh

Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.; (2009) 2 SCC 570, it is

submitted that it is a case of no evidence.

8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

further submitted that even the memo of charge neither

mentions about the witnesses who are proposed to be examined

to prove the charges against the petitioner nor does it mention

about any of the documents that is sought to be relied upon in

proving the charges. Referring to the statement made in

paragraph no. 27, it is submitted that it has categorically been

stated that neither the date of examination of the witnesses was

fixed nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to cross-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
6/14

examine the witnesses.

9. It is further submitted that the entire order sheet of

the departmental proceeding has been brought on record as

Annexure-12 to the writ application. Referring to the order

dated 16.8.2012 of the Conducting Officer which mentions

about the examination of the informant who is said to have

come with evidence as also other witnesses namely Yogendra

Kumar and Raja Babu, it is stated that therein also there is no

mention of any cross-examination nor any of the witnesses

having proved any document and the proceedings concluded on

the same day.

10. In the above circumstances, learned Senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner submits that the case against the

petitioner being one of no evidence, the orders impugned are not

sustainable, the same be set aside and the writ application be

allowed with all consequential benefits.

11. In response, it is submitted by learned counsel

appearing for the State of Bihar that the petitioner who was a

Rajaswa Karamchari was caught red handed in a trap case

taking bribe of Rs.5,000/- which lead to registration of Vigilance

P.S. Case no. 7 of 2012 and the petitioner was taken into

custody. It is submitted that there has been no procedural
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
7/14

irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings. So far as the

examination of the witnesses is concerned, it is stated that the

informant/complainant of the case namely Vijay Prasad

appeared in the departmental proceeding along with the

witnesses Yogendra Kumar and Raja Babu and made a

categorical statement in the proceedings of the petitioner having

taken bribe and being caught in the process.

12. Learned counsel further submits that the proof

required in a departmental proceeding in a criminal case are

distinct and different. While in a criminal case, the prosecution

is required to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts, so far

as departmental proceeding is concerned, the charges are proved

on the basis of preponderance of probability. It is thus submitted

that the witness having been examined and having supported the

charge against the petitioner, the Conducting Officer rightly held

the third charge to have been proved and which lead to the

authority passing the order of punishment against the petitioner.

It is submitted that the petitioner has not made out a case for

interference by this Court in the order of punishment. There is

no merit in the instant writ application and the same be

dismissed.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
8/14

the material on record.

14. The relevant facts is brief are that the petitioner

who was at the relevant time working as a Rajaswa Karamchari

was caught taking bribe of Rs. 5,000/- and he was taken into

custody by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. An FIR was

registered being Special Case no. 9 of 2012.

15. A departmental proceeding was started and by

letter dated 2.4.2012, the petitioner was informed that the memo

of charges in prapatra ‘ka’ was being sent to him. He was

directed to submit his written defence along with the evidence

by 16.4.2012 in the office of the Conducting Officer.

16. A perusal of the memo of charge in prapatra ‘ka’

enclosed with the letter would show that the charge was of the

petitioner, a Rajaswa Karamchari being caught by the Vigilance

Investigation Bureau on 25.1.2012 taking a bribe of Rs. 5,000/-

and he being taken in judicial custody.

17. The petitioner was further served with another

memo of charge mentioning three charges against him. The

charges being:

(i) In Mutation Case no. 176/07-08 he had given a

misleading report and had thus obtained the approval of the

Circle Officer, Hilsa in the case for mutation.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
9/14

(ii) He had illegally issued a receipt in favour of

private individuals with respect to government land.

(iii) A raiding team of the Vigilance Investigation

Bureau caught the petitioner taking bribe.

18. After conducting the enquiry, the Conducting

Officer found charge nos. 1 and 2 not to have been proved,

however in the opinion of the Enquiry Officer, charge no. 3 was

proved. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the

petitioner to which he filed his reply. It is thereafter that the

respondents came out with the order of punishment dated

31.1.2014 under the signature of the District Magistrate,

Nalanda imposing the punishment on the petitioner of dismissal

from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected

by order dated 29.7.2015 of the Divisional Commissioner, Patna

Division and the revision preferred against the said order was

also rejected by order dated 14.10.2016 by the Joint Director,

Agriculture Ganana, Revenue and Land Reforms Department

(respondent no. 4).

19. It may be observed here that so far as proving the

charges contained in the memo of charge against the petitioner

are concerned, it transpires from perusal of the enquiry report

that the complainant Vijay Prasad appeared on 16.8.2012 before
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
10/14

the Enquiry Officer along with the witnesses Yogendra Kumar

and Raja Babu. However, perusal of the ordersheet of the

proceedings for the said date brought on record as Annexure-12

to the writ application, it would transpire that they have not

proved any document in course of their statement which may

have formed the basis for proving the charges against the

petitioner. The order states that they appeared, gave a written

statement and thereafter the enquiry was closed.

20. The ordersheet of the departmental proceeding also

does not show that any date was fixed for their appearance, any

prior intimation had been given to the petitioner or the petitioner

and/or his lawyer was given any opportunity to cross-examine

the said witness.

21. Except for these three witnesses who were shown

to have appeared on 16.8.2012 with some written statement and

the enquiry was also closed on the same date, there is no other

mention of appearance of any other witness.

22. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that in

the memo of charge, the charge was sought to be proved on the

basis of documentary evidence.

23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the

case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) held as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
11/14

“14. Indisputably, a
departmental proceeding is a quasi-
judicial proceeding. The enquiry
officer performs a quasi-judicial
function. The charges levelled against
the delinquent officer must be found to
have been proved. The enquiry officer
has a duty to arrive at a finding upon
taking into consideration the
materials brought on record by the
parties. The purported evidence
collected during investigation by the
investigating officer against all the
accused by itself could not be treated
to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined
to prove the said documents. The
management witnesses merely
tendered the documents and did not
prove the contents thereof. Reliance,
inter alia, was placed by the enquiry
officer on the FIR which could not
have been treated as evidence.”

24. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Devendra Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (judgment

dated 19.10.2023 passed in L.P.A. no. 1302 of 2017), following

Roop Singh Negi (supra) observed as follows:

“7. As has been held in Roop
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
12/14

Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank
and others; (2009) 2 SCC 570, the
documents produced in a
departmental inquiry has to be proved
by examining witnesses. Even an
F.I.R. was held to be not evidence by
itself without actual proof of facts
stated therein. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court had also held that even an
admission or confession to the police
itself is not sufficient to find the
delinquent employee guilty in a
departmental proceeding if no
evidence is brought on record to prove
the offence or misconduct alleged.
Departmental inquiry was held to be a
quasi-judicial proceeding and the
Inquiry Officer functions in the status
of a quasi-judicial authority. Not only
should evidence be led in a
departmental inquiry, the conclusions
arrived at should be based on
evidence which brings forth a
probability that the delinquent has
committed the misconduct alleged and
charged against him. No Inquiry
Report based on conjectures and
surmises can be sustained and even in
a departmental inquiry, the standard
of proof is not a mere suspicion.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
13/14

However high the degree of suspicion
is, it cannot be a substitute for legal
proof.”

25. Coming to the facts of the instant case, no

opportunity having been given by the respondents to cross-

examine the witnesses in the departmental enquiry on 16.8.2012

who appeared on a single date without any prior notice to the

petitioner, the same was clearly a violation of the principles of

natural justice. Further none of these three witnesses also having

proved any document and contents thereof nor any document

having been marked exhibit and proved by these or any other

witness, it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner.

26. In view of the facts and circumstances stated

hereinabove, the order of punishment dated 31.1.2014 passed by

the District Magistrate, Nalanda, the order dated 29.7.2015

rejecting Service Appeal no. 246 of 2014 by the Divisional

Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna and the order dated

14.10.2016 of the Joint Director, Agriculture Ganana, Revenue

and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar rejecting

the revision preferred by the petitioner are all unsustainable and

are accordingly set aside.

27. The writ application is allowed along with

consequential benefits.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1494 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
14/14

28. The petitioner will be reinstated in service with

effect from the date of dismissal i.e. 31.1.2014 and the entire

arrears of salary, after deducting the suspension allowance paid

to the petitioner, shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of

three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of

this order.

29. The writ application stands allowed.

(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.1.2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…