Patna High Court
Subhash Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The punishment order and the service‑appeal dismissal are unsustainable and are set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, a clerk in Muzaffarpur, was charged in a departmental proceeding for allegedly retaining a flood‑relief bank draft meant for another circle, leading to a punishment of stopping two annual increments. He appealed the punishment order dated 30‑03‑2015 and the subsequent service appeal dismissal dated 31‑05‑2016, claiming procedural irregularities and lack of evidence. The court observed that no witnesses were examined and no documents were proved, contravening Supreme Court precedents that require proof on a pre‑ponderance of probability in departmental inquiries. Citing Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and a prior Patna High Court decision, the court held that the enquiry report and the punitive orders were unsustainable. Consequently, both the punishment order and the service‑appeal dismissal were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental proceeding against the petitioner complied with the principles of natural justice and the evidentiary standards required in quasi‑judicial inquiries.
- Whether the punishment of stopping two increments and the dismissal of the service appeal were legally sustainable in view of the lack of substantive evidence.
- Whether the order of suspension (if any) was passed in violation of Rule 17 and 18 of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005.
Subjects
- departmental inquiry
- burden of proof
- quasi‑judicial proceeding
- service appeal
- increment suspension
- procedural irregularity
- evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1505 of 2022
======================================================
Subhash Prasad Singh Son of Late Jai Mangal Singh Resident of Village and
P.O.- Srishiya Jagdhish, Via Birhima Bazar, P.S.- Kathaiya, Dist.-
Muzaffarpur (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reform Deptt. Govt. of Bihar,
Patna
3. Commissioner Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
4. District Magistrate -Cum- Collector, Muzaffarpur
5. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Muzaffarpur
6. Block Development Officer- Cum- Anchal Adhikari, Minapur, District-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Surekha Kumari, AC to GP-18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
5 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief(s):
“(i) To quash the order dated 31.05.16
passed by Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur
in service Appeal No. 100/16 by which he has dismissed
the Service Appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the
order being Memo No. 370/ Establishment dt. 30.03.15
passed by Dist. Magistrate/Collector, Muzaffarpur in
departmental Proceeding No. 7/14 by which the learned
Collector has stopped two increments and also ordered
Patna High Court CWJC No.1505 of 2022(5) dt.06-04-2026
2/7
that the petitioner is not entitled to anything except the
suspension allowance.
(ii) To direct the respondents to pay full
salary of the petitioner after deducting during the
suspension period after deducting the suspension
allowance paid as the respondents had illegally passed
order of suspension of the petitioner without following
the Rule 17 & 18 of the C.C.A Rule 2005.
(iii) To pass any such other order or orders
as this Hon'ble Court thinks fit & proper under the facts
& circumstances of this case.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the
petitioner who was posted as Clerk in Circle Minapur in the
district of Muzaffarpur was proceeded against in a departmental
proceeding by serving a copy of the memo of charge in Prapatra
‘ka’ which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ
application. The petitioner filed a reply to the same and the
enquiry proceeded wherein the Conducting Officer ie the
Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur submitted his enquiry report
dated 5.6.2014. A copy of the enquiry report was provided to the
petitioner of which he submitted his response. The disciplinary
authority came out with an order of punishment contained in
memo no.370 dated 30.3.2015 issued under the signature of the
District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur inflicting the punishment of
stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect
of the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.1505 of 2022(5) dt.06-04-2026
3/7
rejected vide order dated 31.5.2016 passed in Service Appeal
Case no.100 of 2016 by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur. It is the order of punishment dated 30.3.2015 and
the order rejecting the appeal dated 31.5.2016 which are under
challenge by the petitioner in the instant writ application.
4. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. Referring to the statement made
in the counter affidavit filed, it is submitted that there is no
procedural irregularity in the proceedings conducted against the
petitioner who was given opportunity to respond and put
forward his case at all stages. It is submitted that out of the five
Bank drafts disbursed from the Mukhya Mantri Relief Fund for
distribution among the flood victims in the year 2007-08, one of
the drafts which belonged to the beneficiary of another circle
was kept by the petitioner and not returned back even after his
transfer. Thus, on discovery of the same, the proceeding was
started against the petitioner which ended in the order of
punishment impugned in the instant application. There being no
illegality in the proceedings and no merit in the instant writ
application, the same be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1505 of 2022(5) dt.06-04-2026
4/7
6. The relevant facts in brief are that while the
petitioner was posted as a Clerk in the Circle Minapur in the
district of Muzaffarpur in the office of the B.D.O.-cum-C.O.,
Minapur, he received five Bank drafts under the Chief
Minister’s Relief Fund for distribution among the flood victims
of the year 2007-08. The beneficiary of one of the drafts being a
resident of another circle, the same did not reach him and
remained in the file of the petitioner. On the same being
discovered lead to the departmental proceeding having been
initiated against the petitioner on the charges that non-
distribution of the draft to the beneficiary of the flood victim
showed his negligence towards duty and that the same had been
retained by him in the file with wrong intention. The petitioner
submitted his reply to the memo of charge and the departmental
proceeding continued. An enquiry report came to be submitted
by the Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur ie the Conducting
Officer on 5.6.2014, a copy of which has been brought on
record as Annexure-3 to the writ application.
7. Bereft of unnecessary details, it may be observed
here that perusal of the enquiry report would show that neither
any witness has been examined in support of the charges
levelled against the petitioner by the respondents nor any
Patna High Court CWJC No.1505 of 2022(5) dt.06-04-2026
5/7
document proved by any witness or marked as an exhibit.
8. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
even in the departmental proceeding the charges have to be
proved on the basis of preponderance of probability by leading
evidence. Even tendering of the document would not be
sufficient to bring forth the charges levelled against the
delinquent employee.
9. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop
Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank; (2009) 2 SCC 570
which held as follows:
“14. Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The
enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function.
The charges levelled against the delinquent officer
must be found to have been proved. The enquiry
officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking
into consideration the materials brought on record by
the parties. The purported evidence collected during
investigation by the investigating officer against all
the accused by itself could not be treated to be
evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness
was examined to prove the said documents. The
management witnesses merely tendered the
documents and did not prove the contents thereof.
Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer
on the FIR which could not have been treated as
Patna High Court CWJC No.1505 of 2022(5) dt.06-04-2026
6/7
evidence.”
10. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Devendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (judgment dated
19.10.2023 passed in LPA no.1302 of 2017), following Roop
Singh Negi (supra) observed as follows :
“7. As has been held in Roop 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. However
high the degree of suspicion is, it cannot be a
substitute for legal proof.”
11. No witness having been examined nor any
document having been exhibited in proof in support of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1505 of 2022(5) dt.06-04-2026
7/7
charges, the conclusion arrived at in the enquiry report that the
charges levelled against the petitioner came to be proved is
erroneous and unsustainable. The consequential order of
punishment as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority
are also unsustainable.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the order of punishment contained in memo no.370 dated
30.3.2015 (Annexure-6) passed by the District Magistrate,
Muzaffarpur as also the order dated 31.5.2016 rejecting the
appeal filed by the petitioner in Service Appeal no.100 of 2016
(Annexure-7) passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur are both unsustainable and are set aside.
13. The writ application is allowed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U
Checking your session…