Patna High Court
Lalit RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed because the petitioner failed to pursue the mandatory revision remedy under Rule 27 before approaching the court.
Summary
The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Excise Department, led a raid on a suspected codeine syrup sale but found only empty bottles and no suspect. A newspaper later published a false report alleging the petitioner had apprehended a suspect who was released after a bribe. Following an internal inquiry that raised procedural doubts, the petitioner was suspended and penalised with loss of an increment and censure. He appealed the disciplinary order under Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, but the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court without first invoking the revision remedy prescribed in Rule 27 of the same Rules. The Court held that the writ petition was premature and dismissed it, while permitting the petitioner to file a revision before the competent authority.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging a disciplinary order is maintainable when the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory revision remedy under Rule 27 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005
Subjects
- writ petition
- disciplinary action
- procedural requirement
- revision remedy
- excise department
- codeine syrup
- suspension
- Rule 23
- Rule 27
- Bihar Government Servants Rules
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16205 of 2025
======================================================
Lalit Ram Son of Gyani Ram, Resident of Village- Sarbsima Naruar, P.O.-
Lohna Road, P.S.- Bhairavshthan, District- Madhubani 847407.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Prohibition Excise and
Registration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Prohibition Excise and Registration Department, Government
of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Nehru Path, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Prohibition Excise and Registration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition Excise and Registration Department,
Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Nehru Path, Patna.
5. The Joint Commissioner, Prohibition Excise and Registration Department,
Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, new Secretariat, Nehru Path, Patna.
6. The Joint Commissioner, Prohibition, Kosi Division, Saharsa.
7. Joint Commissioner, Prohibition, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
8. The Station House Officer, Excise Police Station, District- Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Piyush Saurav, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ravi Kumar, AC to GP 13
Mr.Akshay Lal Prasad, AC to GP 13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
2 05-01-2026 The petitioner is Assistant Sub-Inspector In-Charge of
Excise Department of Saharsa Excise Police Station. While he
was on duty on 13th of September, 2024, the petitioner received
an information that one Rajesh Kumar was selling narcotic
drugs in the form of codeine syrup near Mangala Bazar under
Basanhi Police Station. In order to work out the said
information, he along with another A.S.I., namely, Anuj Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.16205 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
2/4
of Excise Police Department and other personnel went to the
spot to work out the said information. At the time of search, the
petitioner and other members of the raiding party found some
empty bottles of codeine syrup lying at the place of occurrence
and no person was found in or around at the place of
occurrence. Though he received source information that one
Rajesh Kumar was illegally selling codeine syrup, he did not
find the said Rajesh Kumar also at the spot. He interrogated
local people but they could not throw any light over the said
incident. Subsequently on 23rd of September, 2024, an unknown
person contacted him over phone and disclosed his identity as a
reporter of a Hindi Daily “Danik Bhaskar”. Thereafter, a false
and concocted news paper report was published against the
petitioner, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner apprehended
the said Rajesh Kumar. However, he was subsequently released
without institution of any case as he was a follower of a sitting
Minister of the State and the said A.S.I. received bribe of Rs.
50,000/-.
2. After publication of the said news item, the
Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Saharsa vide a letter no. 2225 /
2525 dated 24th of September, 2025 asked the S.H.O. Excise
Police Station, Saharsa to inquire into the incident and submit a
Patna High Court CWJC No.16205 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
3/4
report. The S.H.O., Respondent No. 8 herein, submitted a report
after interrogating the petitioner and other members of the
raiding team and found petitioner’s version to be correct.
However, he raised a doubt over the said issue on the following
points:-
(i) As to why the empty bottles of codeine syrup were
not seized;
(ii) Why no seizure list was prepared;
(iii) Why statement of local people was not recorded.
3. On the basis of the said report, the petitioner was
suspended. A departmental proceeding was instituted and the
petitioner was punished with the punishment of withholding of
one increment with cumulative effect with censure.
4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 23 of the
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal)
Rules, 2005. The appeal was also dismissed. Against the
appellate order of dismissal, the petitioner has preferred the
instant writ petition praying for appropriate reliefs.
5. It is needless to say that Rule 27 of the Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
2005 contains a provision of revision against the order passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.16205 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
4/4
by the appellate authority. Without exhausting the procedure
contained in CCA Rules, 2005, the petitioner has filed the
instant writ petition which cannot be entertained at this stage.
6. Therefore, I have no other alternative but to dismiss
the instant writ petition.
7. However, the petitioner is given liberty to file
revision against the order passed in appeal by the appellate
authority before the competent authority. If such revision is
filed, the competent authority shall take liberal approach with
regard to limitation because of the fact that the petitioner
diligently was proceeding with the instant writ petition for
appropriate reliefs.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/-
U
Checking your session…