Patna High Court
Ramesh KumarversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
A departmental dismissal without any witness testimony or evidentiary proof of the alleged misconduct is unsustainable, and the orders of dismissal are set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, a Maintenance Technician in the Bihar Council on Science and Technology, was implicated in a trap case and arrested for allegedly taking a Rs.25,000 bribe. After his suspension was vacated, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him, but the memo of charge was issued by officials lacking jurisdiction under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The enquiry report concluded the charges were proved despite no witnesses being examined and the sole document – the vigilance charge‑sheet – not being proved in evidence. The High Court held that the departmental inquiry was a quasi‑judicial proceeding requiring proof beyond mere FIR or documents, and found the dismissal orders to be unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the court set aside both the dismissal order of 6‑June‑2014 and the appeal rejection of 14‑March‑2016, reinstating the petitioner with back wages and consequential benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the memo of charge and subsequent departmental proceeding were issued by a competent authority under the CCA Rules, 2005.
- Whether the departmental enquiry complied with the principles of natural justice and the requirement of proof of charges through examination of witnesses.
- Whether the dismissal order can be sustained in the absence of evidentiary support for the alleged bribe.
- Whether the matter should be remitted for a fresh enquiry or the petitioner should be reinstated with benefits.
Subjects
- departmental inquiry
- dismissal
- procedural irregularities
- natural justice
- burden of proof
- quasi‑judicial
- reinstatement
- back wages
- CCA Rules 2005
- evidence
- no witness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1596 of 2017
======================================================
Ramesh Kumar, S/o late Udit Narain Purbey, Resident of 14 Kidwaipuri,
South of Thakur Prasad Community Hall, P.S. Budha Colony, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar cum Chairman,
Executive Committee, Bihar Council on Science and Technology.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Science and Technology cum Vice
Chairman, Executive Committee, Bihar Council on Science and Technology,
Patna, Government of Bihar.
4. Director, Department of Science and Technology cum Secretary Bihar
Council on Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna
5. Project Director cum Enquiry Officer, Bihar Council on Science and
Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Tavseef Waquar, Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay, GA-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 02-04-2026
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief :-
“That, the application is being filed for
issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
for quashing of the order dated 14/3/2016
(annexure-35) passed by respondent No.2,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1596 of 2017 dt.02-04-2026
2/12
Development Commissioner, whereby the
Departmental Appeal was dismissed and also
for quashing the order of dismissal Vide
Memo No. BCST-291 dated 6/6/2014
(annexure- 31) passed by respondent No. 4
Secretary, BCST whereby in Departmental
Proceeding the order of dismissal of
petitioner was passed by way of major
punishment and also for issuance of a writ in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all
his back wages and other consequential
benefits and also for any other writ/writs.
Direction/directions, order/orders as may be
deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on
5.5.1992, he was appointed on the post of Maintenance
Technician (Lobby Exhibit) in the Bihar Council on Science and
Technology. Having been implicated in a trap case leading to
registration of Vigilance P.S. Case no.69 of 2007 on 30.5.2007,
the petitioner was taken into custody and by order dated
22.6.2007 was placed under suspension. On his release from
custody, he gave his joining which was accepted on 16.12.2009
and his suspension was vacated with effect from 6.1.2008.
4. A departmental proceeding was started against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1596 of 2017 dt.02-04-2026
3/12
petitioner on the charges that (i) the petitioner was caught taking
bribe of Rs.25,000/- and taken into custody; (ii) Vigilance P.S.
Case no.69 of 2007 was registered on 30.5.2007; (iii) in the
charge-sheet submitted by Sri Lal Bahadur Ram, Dy. S.P.,
Vigilance, there is mention of the petitioner demanding bribe of
Rs.25,000/- from the complainant; and (iv) the petitioner had
got bail in the criminal case vide order dated 4.1.2008 passed in
Cr. Misc. no.51081 of 2007. The petitioner submitted his reply
challenging the jurisdiction of the Project Director in issuing of
the memo of charge as also demanding some documents. The
Project Director rejected the reply filed by the petitioner and
sent the file to the Department for further action.
5. On 17.10.2013, the Project Director issued another
memo of charge wherein primarily the charges were the same as
in the earlier memo of charge. In the memo of charge, there was
no list of witnesses and by way of evidence there was mention
of only one document i.e. the charge-sheet submitted by the
Vigilance Bureau.
6. The respondents came out with a letter dated
17.10.2013 being a decision to proceed against the petitioner in
a departmental proceeding as per Rule 17 of the Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1596 of 2017 dt.02-04-2026
4/12
2005 (herein after referred to as ‘the CCA Rules, 2005’)
wherein the Conducting Officer and the Presenting Officer were
appointed.
7. The petitioner filed his reply to the memo of charge
on 22.11.2013.
8. The petitioner was served with a supplementary
memo of charge on 14.2.2014. Though the charges levelled
therein were the same as in the earlier memo of charge i.e. that
the petitioner had been caught taking bribe of Rs.25,000/- and
had been arrested at 3:30 p.m. as per the post-trap memorandum
made available by the Vigilance Bureau, this memo of charge
was issued under the signature of the Director, Department of
Science and Technology –cum– Secretary, Bihar Council on
Science and Technology, Patna (respondent no.4).
9. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Conducting
Officer submitted his enquiry report on 28.4.2014 finding the
charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental
proceeding to have been proved.
10. The petitioner was provided with a copy of the
enquiry report to which he submitted his reply on 24.5.2014.
11. The respondents came out with an order dated
6.6.2014 under the signature of the respondent no.4 dismissing
Patna High Court CWJC No.1596 of 2017 dt.02-04-2026
5/12
the petitioner from service.
12. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was
disposed of by order dated 3.9.2015 by the respondent no.3
observing therein that the same be filed before the respondent
no.2.
13. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal before
the respondent no.2 on 22.2.2016, which was rejected by order
dated 14.3.2016 passed by the respondent no.2.
14. It is submitted by Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the very
initiation of the departmental proceedings by issuance of the
memo of charge as contained in Annexure-5 was illegal, the
authority issuing the memo of charge not being competent in
absence of any resolution empowering him to issue the same.
There was clear cut violation of Rule 17(2), (3), (4), (5)(a) and
(c) of the CCA Rules, 2005. The memo of charge was sent by
the Project Director contained in his letter dated 5.10.2012
inspite of the fact that he was neither the Appointing nor the
Disciplinary Authority. Referring to the order dated 5.5.1992
(Annxure-1), it is submitted that the Appointing Authority of the
petitioner was the Executive Committee of the Bihar Council on
Science and Technology.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1596 of 2017 dt.02-04-2026
6/12
15. It was further submitted by learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the memo of charge did not
mention the list of witnesses whom the respondents proposed to
examine in support of the charges. Further, in course of enquiry,
no witness was examined and thus no document in support of
the charges levelled was proved by any person. Registration of
an FIR by itself did not amount to misconduct. In support of his
contention, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab
National Bank; (2009) 2 SCC 570, State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Saroj Kumar Sinha; (2010) 2 SCC 772, Vijendra Prasad vs.
State of Bihar (order dated 21.10.2019 in CWJC no.18779 of
2019), Kumari Rita vs. State of Bihar (order dated 15.10.2019
in CWJC no.14412 of 2019) and Anil Kumar Singh vs. State
of Bihar (order dated 3.11.2025 in CWJC no.13272 of 2013).
16. The application was opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the State of Bihar who submitted that there were
no procedural irregularities in conduct of the proceedings
against the petitioner under the CCA Rules, 2005. All the
documents being demanded by the petitioner were already
available with him and had been annexed along with the bail
application filed in the criminal case. Acquittal in the criminal
Patna High Court CWJC No.1596 of 2017 dt.02-04-2026
7/12
case would not have any effect in the departmental proceeding
which had been started on the petitioner having been caught
taking bribe of Rs.25,000/- in the trap case as the proof required
are distinct and different. While in the criminal case, the matter
is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, in the
departmental proceeding, the employee can be punished on the
basis of preponderance of probability. Reliance was placed on
the judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Rajit
Singh; (2022) 15 SCC 254 to submit that if it is found that the
enquiry was in violation of the principles of natural justice on
account of the relevant documents not having been supplied,
after setting aside the order of punishment, the matter be
remitted back to the disciplinary authority to conduct a fresh
enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated.
17. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on
record.
18. The relevant facts in brief are that at the relevant
time when the petitioner was posted as Maintenance Technician
in the Bihar Council on Science and Technology having been
implicated in a trap case, an FIR being Vigilance P.S. Case
no.69 of 2007 was registered against the petitioner and he was
Patna High Court CWJC No.1596 of 2017 dt.02-04-2026
8/12
taken into custody. On being enlarged on bail, the petitioner
gave his joining which was accepted and his suspension was
vacated.
19. A departmental proceeding was started against the
petitioner on the charges of having taken bribe of Rs.25,000/-
and being taken into custody, an FIR having been registered
against him, charge-sheet having been filed in the case and that
he had got bail in the criminal case.
20. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner
submitted his reply challenging the jurisdiction of the Project
Director in issuing the memo of charge. He also requested for
some documents to be provided to him.
21. The petitioner was served with another memo of
charge on 17.10.2013, once again by the Project Director. He
was served with a supplementary memo of charge on 14.2.2014.
This time under the signature of the Director, Department of
Science and Technology-cum-Secretary, Bihar Council on
Science and Technology, Patna.
22. After conducting the enquiry, the Conducting
Officer filed an enquiry report on 28.4.2014, finding the charges
levelled against the petitioner to have been proved. On perusal
of the enquiry report, a copy of which has been brought on
Patna High Court CWJC No.1596 of 2017 dt.02-04-2026
9/12
record, would show that no witness was examined in support of
the charges levelled against the petitioner.
23. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that even
in the memo of charge, there was no mention of any witness.
Thus, the only document which finds mention in the memo of
charge i.e. the charge-sheet submitted by the Vigilance Bureau,
was not proved by any person, no witness having been
examined in the departmental proceeding.
24. It may be observed here that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) 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 evidence.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.1596 of 2017 dt.02-04-2026
10/12
25. 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.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.1596 of 2017 dt.02-04-2026
11/12
26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case
and the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), this is a case of no
evidence against the petitioner. Thus, neither the order of
dismissal dated 6.6.2014 passed by the Secretary (Works), Bihar
Council on Science and Technology-cum-Director, Science and
Technology Department, Bihar, Patna nor the order dated
14.3.2016 passed by the Development Commissioner-cum-Vice
Chairman (Executive), Science and Technology Department,
Bihar, Patna rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner can
be sustained and are both hereby set aside.
27. So far as the prayer of the respondents to remit the
matter back to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage it stood
vitiated and their reliance on the judgment in the case of State
of Uttar Pradesh vs. Rajit Singh (supra) is concerned, in the
opinion of this Court, the facts of this case are distinguishable
and thus the judgment being relied upon by learned counsel for
the respondents are of no assistance to them. In the said case,
the charges against the petitioner have been found to be proved
by leading evidence in the departmental proceeding and the only
technical ground on which the order of punishment was set
aside was violation of the principles of natural justice in as
Patna High Court CWJC No.1596 of 2017 dt.02-04-2026
12/12
much as the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were not
supplied to the delinquent officer.
28. So far as the instant case is concerned, no witness
was examined in course of the departmental enquiry, no
document produced or proved and thus is a case of no evidence.
Further, even in the criminal case, the petitioner has been
acquitted.
29. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Court does not find it to be a case where the matter be
remitted back to conduct a fresh proceeding.
30. The writ application is allowed with all
consequential benefits including payment of arrears of salary for
the period of suspension and of dismissal.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/
Saurabh
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 12.01.2026
Uploading Date 02.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.