Patna High Court
Rajnish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The departmental enquiry was vitiated for violating Rule 17(14) and for being based on no evidence, so the dismissal and appellate orders were set aside and the petition was allowed.
Summary
The petitioner, a constable of the Bihar Police, was dismissed following a departmental enquiry into an alleged incident of intoxication and misconduct under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. The petitioner contended that the enquiry violated Rule 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (C.C.A.) Rules, 2005 because he was not allowed to cross‑examine witnesses and the enquiry relied on unsigned or post‑factum statements, rendering the findings perverse and unsupported by evidence. The appellate authority also dismissed his appeal without considering his defence. Relying on several precedents that quash departmental findings lacking evidence or violating natural‑justice principles, the court held that the enquiry was vitiated, set aside the dismissal and appellate orders, and directed a fresh enquiry with proper compliance of procedural safeguards. The petition was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with consequential benefits.
Issues considered
- Did the departmental enquiry comply with Rule 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (C.C.A.) Rules, 2005 regarding cross‑examination of witnesses?
- Was the enquiry report perverse or based on no evidence, warranting its quash?
- Did the dismissal violate the principles of natural justice under Article 311(2) of the Constitution?
- Did the appellate authority err by not considering the petitioner’s defence and submissions?
- Is the petitioner entitled to reinstatement and back wages?
Subjects
- departmental dismissal
- procedural fairness
- Rule 17(14)
- cross‑examination
- quashing order
- reinstatement
- Bihar Police
- prohibition act
- natural justice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE A T PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15503 of 2022
======================================================
Rajnish Kumar Son of Raj Karan Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-
Fulmallik, Ward No.-06, Phulmalik, District-Begusarai, Bihar-851217.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Bihar at Patna.
2. Deputy Inspector General, Munger Range, District-Munger.
3. Superintendent of Police, Jamui, District-Jamui.
4. Enquiry Officer-cum-Inspector, Jhajha Circle, District-Jamui.
5. Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Ms. Deepali Singh, Advocate
: Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, Advocate
: Mr. Anmol Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate
: Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Raushan Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, A.C. to AAG-3
: Ms. Rupali Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
I. That the present writ application is
being filed in the nature of Certiorari
for quashing the Memo No. 493 dated
25.02.2022 (Annexure-P/13) passed by
the Superintendent of Police, Jamui by
which the petitioner has been dismissed
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
2/28
from the post of constable; on the
ground that the procedure given under
Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control & Appeal)
Rules, 2005 (herein after referred as
"Bihar CCA Rules, 2005") specially
Rule 17(14) by which the petitioner was
not allowed to cross examine the
witnesses, also the entire proceeding is
without having the proper witness and
an empty formality has been done;
II. That the present writ application has
been filed in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the Jamui District Order No.
450/2022 bearing memo no. NIL dated
24.04.2022 (Annexure-P/15) passed by
the Deputy Inspector General, Munger
Range, Munger by which the appeal
filed by the petitioner has been
dismissed and the order passed by the
appointing authority has been affirmed;
on the ground that despite of raising all
the plea as given under Bihar CCA
Rules, 2005 has not been considered
and it is an empty formality done;
III. That the present writ application is being
filed in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the enquiry report dated
28.12.2021 in District Enquiry No. 72 of
2021 by which the petitioner has found
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
3/28
to be guilty on the ground that the entire
enquiry, there was no opportunity being
given for cross examination of the
witnesses, the witnesses had only
identified the signature of the concerned
person, there is no proper enquiry
conducted by following procedure under
Bihar CCA Rules, 2005;
IV. That the present writ application is
being filed in the nature of Mandamus
for a direction to reinstate the petitioner
on the post of Constable in the District
Jamui with all consequential relief;
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was a constable in the Bihar Police. One FIR
bearing Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 193 of 2021 dated 28.06.2021
was instituted under Section 37(b)(c) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018, against the petitioner with
an allegation that the petitioner had consumed liquor and abused
other fellow constables and created ruckus in the barrack.
During breath analyzer test, 92.3 ml per 100 ml of alcohol was
found and medical test was conducted at Laxmimpur referral
hospital, where it was confirmed that the petitioner had
consumed liquor and accordingly he was taken into custody. The
petitioner was put under suspension w.e.f. 29.06.2021, which
was subsequently revoked vide memo no. 2783 bearing Jamui
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
4/28
District Order No. 1117/21 dated 20.09.2021 issued under the
signature of the Superintendent of Police, Jamui. Departmental
proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and vide letter
contained in Memo No. 3034 dated 29.10.2021 the petitioner
was directed to file his show cause reply within five days. The
petitioner submitted his reply wherein he denied the charges and
it was specifically mentioned by the petitioner that he was
prescribed medicine by the doctor on 07.04.2021 and since he
had consumed the medicine, the Officer In-Charge implicated
him in Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 193 of 2021. The petitioner
requested the Departmental Authority to take sympathetic view
against him and to exonerate him from the charges levelled
against him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
vide Memo No. 3125 dated 12.11.2021 issued under the
signature of the Superintendent of Police, Jamui, memo of
charge was issued wherein certain charges were levelled against
the petitioner and the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer
were also appointed. The charge contained details of the
documents and two witnesses to be relied upon by the
department, during course of enquiry. Vide Memo No. 646 dated
25.11.2021 issued under the signature of the Enquiry Officer, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
5/28
petitioner was directed to file show cause reply before the
Enquiry Officer. It has been contended by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that even before issuance of letter dated
25.11.2021, the prosecution witness was already examined by
the Enquiry Officer and during course of his examination he
only identified the signature of the Superintendent of Police and
apart from same, nothing was said by him with regard to the
charges levelled against the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that even the second witness namely Subodh Kumar,
who was posted as the officer in-charge of Laxmipur police
station during course of examination deposed on 25.11.2021 and
he too only identified the signature of the then officer in-charge
of the Laxmipur police station, namely Mritunjay Kumar Pandit,
who was the material witness and whose examination was
relevant for arriving to any conclusion in the departmental
proceeding.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out
that even from perusal of the evidence of the witness namely
Subodh Kumar, it would transpire that the signature of the
petitioner has been taken on the said documents post facto on
27.11.2022, which suggest that the said witness was not cross
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
6/28
examined by the petitioner and his examination was held behind
the back of the petitioner. Subsequently, vide Memo No. 656
dated 28.11.2021 issued under the signature of the Enquiry
Officer, the petitioner was directed to give second show cause
reply and in compliance thereof the petitioner submitted the
same, wherein he submitted that since he was suffering from
chest infection and on advice of the doctor he was prescribed
medicine, therefore it cannot be presumed that he was under
influence of liquor. He further submitted that even the urine and
blood test was never conducted and further pointed out in the
show cause reply that in the memo of charge no detail and
description has been given with regard to the persons who were
there, while the petitioner was creating ruckus in the barrack and
none of them have been examined during course of the enquiry.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the entire enquiry has been conducted in complete
violation of the provisions contained in Rule 17(14) of the Bihar
Government Servants (C.C.A.) Rules, 2005, since the petitioner
has not been given any opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses, who deposed during the course of departmental
enquiry and he was only provided with the copy of their
statement which was recorded behind the back of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
7/28
He further submits that even the witnesses have not deposed
with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner, but
they had only identified the signature of the Superintendent of
Police and the then officer in-charge. After enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report before the disciplinary authority
wherein he found the charges to be proved against the petitioner.
The disciplinary authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police,
Jamui vide Memo No. 3469 dated 30.12.2021 directed the
petitioner to submit his reply to the second show cause notice.
The petitioner immediately on receipt of the notice filed his
detailed reply, wherein he pointed out the deficiencies during
course of enquiry and in initiation of the departmental
proceeding.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the Enquiry Officer without examining any
witness on the charges levelled against the petitioner and
without having relied on any document proceeded to submit his
enquiry report, wherein he found the charges to be proved
against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority vide Memo No.
493 dated 25.02.2022, without even considering the show cause
reply filed by the petitioner proceeded to pass the impugned
order of punishment, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
8/28
from service. The petitioner filed statutory appeal before the
appellate authority i.e. the D.I.G., Munger Range, Munger on
23.03.2022, wherein he raised various points, including non-
adherence to the provisions contained in the Bihar Government
Servants (C.C.A.) Rules, 2005 and the non-examination of the
material witness and no opportunity to cross-examine, even the
witnesses who were produced by the department. The petitioner
further in his appeal stated that non-examination of the material
witness and the witnesses who were examined by the Presenting
Officer, prejudiced his case, since he was not given an
opportunity to rebut the charges levelled against him. The
petitioner also took a plea in the memo of appeal that even the
medical officer, who is said to have found the petitioner to be in
intoxicated condition was not examined and now the report of
the doctor has been brought on record. However, the appellate
authority without even considering the points raised by the
petitioner in his memo of appeal, by his impugned Order No.
450 of 2022 dated 24.04.2022, rejected the appeal filed by the
petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in a casual manner,
without adhering to the provisions contained in the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
9/28
Government Servants (C.C.A.) Rules, 2005, since neither the
informant of Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 193 of 2021, which was
the basis of initiation of departmental proceeding against the
petitioner, was examined nor the doctor, who is said to have
conducted the breath analyzer test upon the petitioner and found
him to be in intoxicated condition, was examined. The
department instead choose to examine the officer in-charge of
Laxmipur, P.S., who was posted at the time when departmental
enquiry was being conducted and he only identifies the signature
of the informant of Laxmipur P.S. Case no. 193 of 2021. He
further submits that even the breath analyzer report has not been
brought on record. Neither the statement nor the persons in
presence of whom the petitioner was said to have created
ruckus, were examined or their evidences were brought on
record. He further submits that the petitioner has even not given
any opportunity to cross-examine the two witnesses, since they
were examined behind the back of the petitioner and they have
stated nothing, apart from proving the signatures of two persons.
He further submits that the petitioner in his second show cause
reply has specifically stated that no evidence of witness
Mritunjay Kumar Pandit was recorded and since the evidence of
Mirtunjay Kumar Pandit was not recorded, the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
10/28
denied an opportunity to cross-examine him. He further pointed
out that in the show cause reply, the statement of the person,
who was in the barrack with the petitioner, has been ignored
although the petitioner has referred to the same and he has only
been proceeded against on the basis of the First Information
Report.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and
relies on a judgment dated 17.08.2021 passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2950 of 2021
(Indubhushan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.)
reported in (2022) 2 BLJ 26 wherein in paragraph no. 5, 8, 10
and 11 it has been held as follows:
“ 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the present case is a
case of no evidence, inasmuch as
neither the officials nor the passengers
of A.C. Coach of Vibhuti Express, with
whom the petitioner is alleged to have
had an altercation in a drunken state,
have been examined nor the informant
of F.I.R. in question has been examined
nor the doctor who had conducted the
F.S.L. test has been examined.
Moreover, it is submitted that the F.S.L.
report of the blood and urine sample of
the petitioner has been found to be
containing zero alcohol, hence it has
been proved that the petitioner had not
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
11/28
consumed liquor. It is submitted that in
fact, a bare perusal of the inquiry
report dated 03.05.2017 would show
that the Inquiry Officer has also not
found any evidence either regarding the
petitioner having consumed any liquor
or any witness having supported the
allegation of altercation having taken
place in between the passengers and
the petitioner. Nonetheless, a
perfunctory and perverse inquiry report
has been submitted against the
petitioner.
8. The findings recorded in a domestic
enquiry can be characterised as
perverse if it is shown that such
findings are not supported by any
evidence on record or are not based on
the evidence adduced by the parties or
no reasonable person could have come
to those findings on the basis of that
evidence. This principle was laid down
by this Court in State of A.P. v. Rama
Rao MANU/SC/0222/1963 : [(1964) 2
LLJ 150 : AIR 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 3
SCR 25] in which the question was
whether the High Court under Article
226 could interfere with the findings
recorded at the departmental enquiry.
This decision was followed in Central
Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chand
Jain MANU/SC/0416/1968 : [(1969) 2
LLJ 377 : AIR 1969 SC 983] and
Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
12/28
Balubhai Patel [MANU/SC/0345/1975:
(1976) 1 SCC 518 : 1976 SCC (L&S)
92 : 1976 Lab IC 4 : AIR 1976 SC 98 :
(1976) 2 SCR 280]. In Rajinder Kumar
Kindra v. Delhi Admn.
[MANU/SC/0285/1984: (1984) 4 SCC
635 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 131 : AIR 1984
SC 1805 : (1985) 1 SCR 866] it was
laid down that where the findings of
misconduct are based on no legal
evidence and the conclusion is one to
which no reasonable man could come,
the findings can be rejected as
perverse. It was also laid down that
where a quasi-judicial tribunal records
findings based on no legal evidence
and the findings are its mere ipse dixit
or based on conjectures and surmises,
the enquiry suffers from the additional
infirmity of non-application of mind
and stands vitiated.
10. Thus, this Court finds from the inquiry
report dated 03.05.2017 that no
relevant witness i.e. either the
staff/officials/passengers of the train in
question or the informant who had
lodged the F.I.R. or the doctor who had
conducted F.S.L. test have been
examined and moreover, the Inquiry
Officer himself, in his Inquiry report
dated 03.05.2017 has not found any
evidence as against the petitioner
herein visa-vis the charges levelled
against him, thus on the very face of it,
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
13/28
the inquiry report dated 03.05.2017 is
non est in the eyes of law, as such,
stands vitiated, hence is quashed,
especially being contrary to the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra),
Kuldeep Singh (supra) and Saroj Kr.
Sinha (supra). Consequently, the
impugned order of punishment dated
29.03.2019, passed by the
Commandant, BMP-4, Dumraon,
Buxar, is also quashed since the same is
based on a perverse, perfunctory and
an unlawful inquiry report, which has
already stood quashed. Since the views
expressed by the disciplinary authority
in its order of punishment dated
29.03.2019 have been mechanically
endorsed by the appellate authority and
moreover, the order of punishment
dated 29.03.2019 has already stood
quashed herein above, the order dated
01.01.2020, passed by the appellate
authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Military Police,
Central Zone, Patna rejecting the
appeal of the petitioner has got no legs
to stand, hence is also set aside.
11. Now coming to the issue of back wages,
this Court finds that since the
disciplinary proceedings have been
attended with malafide and since the
actions of the disciplinary authority
reek of a design to somehow inflict
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
14/28
punishment of dismissal upon the
petitioner herein, this Court deems it fit
and appropriate to grant 100% back
wages to the petitioner herein along
with other consequential benefits as is
admissible to the petitioner, in view of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of case Deepali
Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya & Ors.,
reported in MANU/SC/0942/2013:
(2013) 10 SCC 324.”
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies on a judgment passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court on 11.09.2023 in C.W.J.C. No. 4496 of 2023
Radheshyam Ram vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. wherein in
paragraph no. 5 and 6 it has been held as follows:
5. The Presenting Officer, in the entire
proceedings, has not placed the
alleged breath analyzer report or
any test report, based on which, it
is alleged that the fact of petitioner
being under influence of alcohol
was confirmed. The Court would,
therefore, record that the instant
case is a case of no evidence in
support of the allegation of
petitioner being under influence of
alcohol as it is the case of the 2nd
witness also that confirmation of
this fact was only by virtue of a
"test", even that test report,
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
15/28
however, is not to be found in the
proceeding. In absence of the test
report, the case would come under
the purview of a case of no
evidence.
6. Insofar as the interference with the
findings in a proceedings are
concerned, the decision of the
Apex court in the case of Union of
India & Ors. vs. P. Gunasekaran
reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 is
worth consideration in the instant
case. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
time and again reiterated the
contours of exercise of judicial
review in matters arising out of a
departmental proceedings. It has
been emphasized that review is
confined to the decision making
process and not the decision itself.
Such proposition of law, however,
is subject to certain exception
such as where in a case the
findings are perverse or founded
on no evidence. In the instant
case, this Court has already held
that it is a case of no evidence.
The order of the Superintendent of
Police dated 31.08.2021
(Annexure-7) visiting the
petitioner with extreme
punishment of dismissal is,
therefore, unsustainable in law as
well in fact. The order of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
16/28
Appellate Authority (Annexure-8)
confirming such illegal order,
therefore, must also collapse and
is hereby quashed. This Court
would also quash the order passed
by the D.G.P. dated 22-08-2022,
as contained in Annexure-9 to the
writ petition on the memorial filed
by the petitioner. The petitioner is
to be reinstated forthwith and the
Disciplinary Authority should
proceed after the stage of service
of charge memo, in accordance
with law.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the entire departmental proceeding has been
conducted in complete violation of the provisions contained in
Rule 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (C.C.A.) Rules,
2005, since only two witnesses were examined during course of
enquiry, but the petitioner was never given any opportunity to
cross-examine the said witnesses and this plea has specifically
been taken by the petitioner in his reply to the second show
cause notice. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner
relies on a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
reported in 2025 (3) PLJR 547 Ranjan Kumar vs. The State of
Bihar and Ors., wherein in paragraph no. 17 to 20 it has been
held as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
17/28
“ 17. Rule 17(14) clearly prescribes that on
the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral
and documentary evidence by which the
articles of charge are proposed to be
proved shall be produced by or on
behalf of the disciplinary authority. The
witnesses shall be examined by or on
behalf of the Presenting Officer and
cross-examined by or on behalf of the
Government Servant. The Presenting
Officer shall be entitled to re-examine
the witnesses on any points on which
they have been cross- examined, but not
on any new matter, without the leave of
the inquiring authority. The inquiring
authority is also empowered to put such
questions to the witnesses, as it thinks
fit. From the conjoint reading of all the
aforementioned, prima facie,
prescriptions of CCA Rules, 2005 it
would be evident that the legislation has
interfered and emphasized the
obligation upon the disciplinary
authority to produce the document and
the witnesses of each article of charge is
proposed to be sustained.
18. In the light of the statutory prescriptions
noted hereinabove, now coming to the
memo of charge, the copy of which is
placed on record as Annexure-P/12. The
list of documents contains four letters
issued by different authorities. However,
admittedly there is no list of witnesses.
The charges in sum and substance
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
18/28
alleged against the delinquent with
regard to dereliction of duty and laxity
in investigation; and engaging in acts,
which aimed at and facilitated holding
the accused persons, in the opinion of
this Court, cannot sustain only on
documentary evidence, rather the same
is to be proved by oral evidence.
Moreover, even the documentary
evidence, which has been produced
during the course of investigation, none
of the witnesses have come forward to
prove the content thereof. It has rightly
been urged by the learned Advocate for
the petitioner that the SHO of the
concerned police station was the
relevant witness to prove the charge
no.1, his deposition has not even been
recorded. Similarly, the Superintendent
of Police, Munger and the investigating
officer of the questioned police station
case, their depositions have not been
recorded by the Conducting officer. This
Court also finds substance in the
submission that in the case in hand, the
onus to prove the charge has been
erroneously shifted to the petitioner. The
Court on innumerable occasion has
emphasized and underscore that a
finding can be arrived at by the enquiry
officer, if there is some evidence on
record. The evidence must be admissible
evidence and non- else.
19. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra),
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
19/28
the Apex Court held that mere
production of a document is not enough.
Contents of documentary evidence have
to be proved by examining the
witnesses. The Court further observed
that since a departmental proceeding is
a quasi judicial proceeding. The
Enquiry Officer performs a quasi
judicial function. The charges leveled
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. Hence, the
Court finally observed that mere
tendering of the documents would not
suffice and the reliance placed by the
Enquiry Officer on the FIR could not
have been treated as evidence.
20. Similarly, in the case of Saroj Kumar
Sinha (supra), the Court cautioned that
even an ex-parte enquiry, it is the duty
of the enquiry officer to examine the
evidence presented by the department to
find out whether the unrebutted
evidence is sufficient to hold that the
charges are proved. It would be prudent
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
20/28
to encapsulate the relevant extract of
the decision, which shall answer and
cover the issue involved herein:
"28. An inquiry officer acting in
a quasi-judicial authority is in
the position of an independent
adjudicator. He is not supposed
to be a representative of the
department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His
function is to examine the
evidence presented by the
Department, even in the
absence of the delinquent
official to see as to whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient
to hold that the charges are
proved. In the present case the
aforesaid procedure has not
been observed. Since no oral
evidence has been examined the
documents have not been
proved, and could not have
been taken into consideration to
conclude that the charges have
been proved against the
respondents.
29. Apart from the above, by
virtue of Article 311(2) of the
Constitution of India the
departmental enquiry had to be
conducted in accordance with
the rules of natural justice. It is
a basic requirement of the rules
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
21/28
of natural justice that an
employee be given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in
any proceedings which may
culminate in punishment being
imposed on the employee."
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies on a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court dated 07.01.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9570 of 2021
Deokant Sinha vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., wherein in
paragraph Nos. 17 & 21 it has been held as follows:
“ 17. It would also be relevant to take note
of Rule 17(14) which obliges the
Enquiry Officer that after examination
of the witnesses by or Presenting
Officer he or they may be cross
examined or on behalf of the
Government Servant.
21. This Court has also gone through the
impugned order of dismissal as well as
the appellate order. There is absolutely
no consideration of the explanations
submitted by the petitioner in relation
to the charges levelled against him and
his submission indicating various
infirmities and illegalities in defiance
with the provisions contained in Rule
17 of the Rules, 2005 as well as the
judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Moreover, the
discussion, hereinabove, would
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
22/28
manifestly confirm that the orders
impugned are based on a proceeding
which suffers from multiple statutory
violation where the orders put to
challenge, were founded on the
proceeding which defaults on the
mandatory prescribed procedure, the
entire proceeding stands vitiated for
once the foundation on which the
orders are resting is removed, the
edifice built thereon has to collapse
[vide; Uday Pratap Singh (supra)].”
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
relies on a judgment reported in (2022) 4 PLJR 87 Manik
Besra vs. The State Bank of India and Ors. wherein in
paragraph no. 8 it has been held as follows:
" 8. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner
was subjected to parallel proceedings
on alleged certain misdeeds stated to
have been committed. In the criminal
proceedings in view of filing of the 'B'
report on 30.11.2007 and its
acceptance on 27.03.2010 the criminal
proceedings stands closed. In respect of
disciplinary proceedings second show
cause notice was issued on 26.05.2010
asking the petitioner to submit his
explanation within a period of two
weeks. Even though petitioner had not
sought for extension of time to submit
his reply beyond the time limit
stipulated. However, the disciplinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
23/28
authority while passing order with
reference to dated 17/26.06.2010
referred to the petitioner's reply to the
second show cause notice. However,
there is not even a single contention has
been dealt by the disciplinary authority.
No doubt, disciplinary authority need
not elaborately consider each and
every contention. At least, in brief, a
gist of the reply to the second show
cause notice was required to be
considered by the disciplinary authority
for the reasons that object of issuance
of second show cause notice and
receipt of explanation procedure would
be defeated if it is not considered.
Therefore, the disciplinary authority
should have, in brief, examined the
petitioner's reply to the second show
cause notice. Therefore, there is non-
application of mind by the disciplinary
authority in not considering the
contention of the petitioner as against
second show cause notice.”
15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State
submits that the petitioner duly participated in the enquiry
proceeding without any objection and now he cannot question
the sanctity of the proceedings, since the departmental
proceeding was conducted strictly in conformity with the
provisions contained in Bihar Government Servants (C.C.A.)
Rules, 2005 and the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
24/28
to defend himself, even the two witnesses who were examined
by the Enquiry Officer identified the signature of Mritunjay
Kumar Pandit and the other person.
16. The learned counsel for the State further submits
that the Enquiry Officer has taken note of all the relevant facts
and statutory provisions as well as existing Bihar Prohibition
and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 which prohibits
consumption/transportation etc. of liquor in the State of Bihar
and upon consideration of all the materials placed before him, he
found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved
and accordingly submitted his enquiry report, which is based on
facts and the evidences.
17. The learned counsel for the State further submits
that the petitioner appeared in the departmental proceeding and
never raised any objection with regard to the manner in which
the departmental proceeding was being conducted. The
witnesses, who deposed before the Enquiry Officer proved the
charges against the petitioner and upon conclusion of the
enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion
that all the charges against the petitioner have been found to be
proved.
18. The learned counsel for the respondent-State
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
25/28
further submits that the order passed by the Superintendent of
Police, Jamui is based on materials, which were placed before
him and which were gathered by the Enquiry Officer during
course of departmental proceeding and upon due consideration
of the reply submitted by the petitioner and after going through
the enquiry report, he proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from
service, which is in conformity with the documents and
evidence produced before him.
19. The learned counsel for the State finally submits
that it is incorrect to submit that the defence taken by the
petitioner in his second show cause notice or the grounds taken
by the petitioner in his memo of appeal were not considered by
the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority.
20. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the documents available on record, this
Court find that after issuance of memo of charge to the
petitioner and before he was directed by the Enquiry Officer to
appear before him, two of the witnesses who were named in the
memo of charge, were already examined and post facto
signature of the petitioner was obtained on the written statement
of one of the witnesses namely Subodh Kumar, which goes to
show that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
26/28
examine the witnesses and even the witnesses who were
examined did not prove the case of the prosecution i.e. the
department and only proved the signature of two persons. From
the above, this Court finds that the Enquiry Officer conducted
the enquiry in complete violation of the provisions contained in
Rule 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (C.C.A.) Rules,
2005. Further it also appears that the disciplinary authority while
passing the impugned order did not consider the second show
cause reply filed by the petitioner, since no where any
consideration has been made with regard to the defence taken by
the petitioner in his second show cause reply, although it was
required to be considered, since the petitioner in his second
show cause reply has taken a plea that the Enquiry Officer has
violated the provisions contained in Rule 17(14) of Bihar
Governmetn Servant (C.C.A.) Rules, 2005 and he was never
given any opportunity to cross-examine the informant or even
the witnesses who proved the signatures. Further, the appellate
authority also did not take into account the defence taken by the
petitioner in his memo of appeal and he, in a mechanical manner
proceeded to reject the appeal preferred by the petitioner and no
consideration has been made in his order dated 24.04.2022 with
regard to the defence taken by the petitioner in his memo of
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
27/28
appeal.
21. This Court further finds that the informant of the
criminal case was not examined to prove the case, which denied
an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine him, to prove
his innocence. Not a single witness was examined by the
prosecution who were present at the time, when the petitioner is
said to have created ruckus in intoxicated condition in the
barrack. Even the doctor who examined the petitioner, was not
examined and the blood and urine sample were not collected or
report of the same was produced.
22. Accordingly, on the basis of consideration made
above, the impugned order contained in Memo No. 493 dated
25.02.2022 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jamui, the
appellate order contained in Jamui District Order No. 450 of
2022 dated 24.04.2022 issued under the signature of the D.I.G.,
Munger Range, Munger, the letter no. 66 dated 02.02.2024
issued under the signature of the Director General of Police,
Bihar, Patna, by which the memorial preferred by the petitioner
has been rejected and the enquiry report no. 72 of 2021 dated
28.12.2021 deserves to be set aside and are accordingly set
aside.
23. The matter is remitted back to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15503 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
28/28
Superintendent of Police, Jamui to proceed afresh from the stage
of issuance of memo of charge itself after giving due
opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the proceeding. The
entire exercise must be completed within a period of six months
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. If the
disciplinary authority finds the petitioner to be not guilty, then
the petitioner would be entitled for all the consequential
benefits.
24. With the aforementioned observations and
directions, the writ petition is allowed.
25. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
Abhishek
Ajay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.03.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…