Patna High Court

Avinash KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 27 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The court held that the suspension order and the charge memo are valid and cannot be quashed, but directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner's case maintaining parity within 90 days.

Summary

The petitioner, a suspended manager in the Bihar administration, filed a writ petition challenging his suspension order dated 20 September 2024 and the accompanying charge memo, alleging they were issued without legal basis and in violation of Rule 9(1) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. He claimed the suspension was illegal as he was on sanctioned medical leave and sought quashing of the orders and reinstatement. The State argued that the suspension and charge memo were issued in accordance with the Rules and the 2017 charge regulations, and that any defence must be presented before the enquiry officer, not the court. The court examined the jurisdiction to suspend, the validity of the charge memo under the 2017 regulations, and the requirement to prefer an appeal under Rule 23 before approaching the court. It held that both the suspension and charge memo were valid and not subject to quash, but directed the Principal Secretary to decide the petitioner's case maintaining parity with a similarly situated officer within 90 days. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with directions to the competent authority.

Issues considered

Whether the suspension order dated 20‑09‑2024 issued under Rule 9(1) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 is legally valid.
Whether the charge memo issued on the same date complies with the Bihar Framing Of Articles Of Charge Against Government Servants Regulations, 2017.
Whether the petitioner can approach the High Court directly without first filing an appeal under Rule 23 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
Whether the principle of parity with a similarly suspended officer requires the suspension to be revoked.

Subjects

suspension
charge memo
Bihar CCA Rules 2005
administrative law
writ of certiorari
writ of mandamus
parity
disciplinary proceedings

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17643 of 2024
======================================================
Avinash Kumar son of Rajendra Prasad, Resident of Village-Lata Nivas, Hatia
Road, Tilka Manjhi, P.S.-Tilka Manjhi, District-Bhagalpur at present
suspended Manager, Bettia Raj, Bettiah.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Chairman, Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
5. Secondary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
6. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.
7. Joint Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
8. Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
9. Under Secretary, Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.
10. Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.
11. Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
12. District Officer cum Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader 04,
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 27-01-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

following relief/s:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
2/9

“I. Issuance of an appropriate writ
including a writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the order vide
Gyapank-2/Aarop-01-13/2024-Sa
Pra-15104/Patna-15 dated
20.09.2024 (Annexure-P/6) issued
under the signature of Under
Secretary, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna (Respondent no. 8) and also
quashing the order vide letter no.
2/Aarop-01-13/2024-Sa Pra-15148,
Patna-15 dated 23.09.2024
(Annexure-P/7) issued under the
signature of Under Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
(Respondent no. 8) without any legal
basis and also not followed the rule
9(1) of Bihar Government servants
(Classification Control and Appeal)
Rules 2005 while the petitioner was
on leave duly sanctioned by the
competent authority due to illness of
his wife illness because his wife was
admitted in Shrishty Nurshing Home,
Bhagalpur under the treatment of Dr.
Sangita Mehta.
II. Issuance of an appropriate writ
including a writ in the nature of writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
3/9

of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondents to revoke
the suspension order dated
20.09.2024 (Annexure-P/6)
immediately and the petitioner
posted at any place in Bihar on the
post of A.D.M. rank because the said
suspension order is illegal and not
sustainable in the eye of law.
III. Issuance of any other appropriate
writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as may
be deemed fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner joined the Government Service on 22.06.1995 as a

Deputy Collector (Bihar Administration Service) through 38 th

Bihar Public Service Examination, conducted by the Bihar

Public Service Commission, Patna. Counsel submits that the

petitioner was transferred from Sheohar as Settlement Officer to

as Manager Bettiah Raj, Bettiah and the petitioner joined as a

Manager Bettiah Raj, Bettiah on 12.02.2024 and taken charges

from the District Public Grievance Redressal Officer who was

posted as Incharge Manager, Bettiah Raj, Bettiah. Counsel

further submits that the petitioner was on leave from 19.08.2024

due to illness of his wife which was duly sanctioned by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
4/9

competent authority. In this regard, petitioner has filed an

application before the authority on 18.08.2024 regarding leave

sanction vide Letter No. 426 dated 18.08.2024. Thereafter, the

petitioner filed applications dated 26.08.2024 and 07.09.2024

regarding extension of leave before the authority as per the

Doctor. Counsel further submits that the Deputy Secretary,

Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna (Respondent no.10) sent a letter

to the petitioner on 27.08.2024 regarding participation in the

meeting, while the petitioner was on leave, and due to illness of

his wife, he could not attend the said meeting.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the petitioner was suspended under Rule 9(1) of the

Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal)

Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bihar CCA Rules,

2005’) vide order dated 20.09.2024 contained in Memo No.

15104 (Annexure-P/6). Counsel submits that the charges

levelled against the petitioner is totally baseless and the said

charges are not sustainable in the eye of law. Counsel submits

that the charge levelled against the petitioner was relating to his

absence without permission of the authority. Counsel submits

that he has explained the entire situation under which he has

taken leave. But, charge sheet has also been issued after
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
5/9

suspension. Counsel submits that the suspension order and the

issuance of charge memo, both are baseless and there is no

material for the same. In this regard, he has relied on a letter

which is annexed as Annexure-P/11 to the supplementary

affidavit written by the Manager, Bettiah Raj, Bettiah to the

Under Secretary, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna dated

16.01.2025. Counsel relying on said Annexure-P/11 and submits

that there is no evidence against the petitioner for charge nos.1,

2, 3 & 4. He submits that the charge memo should be set aside

and the suspension order be also set aside. Counsel further

relying on one letter issued by the General Administrative

Department, Government of Bihar dated 21.07.2023 contained

in Letter No. 13888 and submits that the Disciplinary Authority

shall review the suspension of government servants under their

control, who have been suspended for a period exceeding 01

year, every 03 months. He submits that here in the present case,

the suspension is admittedly for about 16 months. Therefore,

relying on the said letter, counsel submits that the writ petition

be allowed and the suspension order as well as the charge

memo, both be set aside. Counsel submits that the suspension of

other person has been revoked who was working as D.C.L.R

vide Memo No. 18916 dated 06.10.2025. He submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
6/9

parity be maintained in his case also.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand

submits that the suspension order as well as the charge memo

have been issued/passed completely in accordance with law. He

submits that under Rule 9(7) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, the

removal or suspension is valid only when no charge memo has

been issued within a fixed period of time. Here in the present

case, according to him, the charge memo has been issued well

within time and therefore, he submits that the charge memo is

not bad and whatever be the defence the petitioner has to take,

he has to take before the Enquiry Officer and not directly before

this Hon’ble Court. Counsel further submits that the said

resolution issued by the General Administrative Department,

Government of Bihar dated 21.07.2023 contained in Letter No.

13888 has no application at all in the present case, due to the

reason that Rule 9(7) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 is in favour

of the State. The allegation of indiscipline is against the

petitioner. He submits that even if no charge is there or any

document is not there, then simply by writing a letter which is

through internal correspondence, shall not help the petitioner in

any manner. And whatever the petitioner has to say, he has to

say before the Enquiry Officer only.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
7/9

6. After hearing the parties, there are certain

aspects which are necessary to be taken care of in the present

writ petition. Firstly that whether suspension is in accordance

with law or not. The answer is that it is well within the power of

the Disciplinary Authority to suspend the employee. The order

of suspension is well within the jurisdiction. Therefore, this

Court shall not interfere in the order of suspension. It is also

very clear that the appeal is maintainable against the order of

suspension under Rule 23 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. But,

the petitioner has not preferred any appeal and directly moved

before this Hon’ble Court for quashing of the suspension order.

7. The second point that whether the charge memo

is defective or not. This Court has perused the charge memo

which is part of Annexure- P/7. From the said charge memo, it

transpires that the said charge memo has been issued on

20.09.2024 i.e. after enactment of regulation namely, Bihar

Framing Of Articles Of Charge Against Government Servants

Regulations, 2017. The Appendix 1 of the said regulation

indicates that the memo of article of charge shall contain four

parts. Here in the present case, all the four parts are present. And

therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the charge memo is

not defective and it is completely in accordance with the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
8/9

regulation of 2017. It is due to this reason, this Court is not

ready to quash the charge memo. So far as the maintainability of

the charges alleged against the petitioner by virtue of the charge

memo is concerned, reliance on Annexure-P/11 shall not help

the petitioner in the manner he seeks. For his defence, he has to

appear before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer shall

decide the same.

8. So far as the question of parity which the

petitioner raised before this Hon’ble Court by virtue of a

similarly situated person in case of Ishtdev Mahadev, the then

D.C.L.R, Danapur who was also suspended. But, after

completion of one year in the light of Letter No. 13888 dated

21.07.2023, his suspension was removed, but the disciplinary

proceeding continued.

9. This Court is hereby neither setting aside the

suspension order nor the charge memo, but only directs the

Principal Secretary, General Administration Department,

Government of Bihar, Patna (Respondent no.4) who is the

competent authority, to take a decision in case of the petitioner

who is a Gazetted Officer and maintain the parity as like that of

Ishtdev Mahadev the then D.C.L.R, Danapur contained in

Memo No. 18916 dated 06.10.2025, within 90 days from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
9/9

date of production of a copy of this order. It is also directed that

the rule on the basis of which relief has been granted to another

person be also directed to be apply in case of petitioner i.e.

contained in Memo No. 18344 dated 27.09.2023.

10. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, this

writ petition stands disposed off.

(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29/01/2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…