Patna High Court
Sujit KumarversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The High Court set aside the dismissal order and the appellate order, directing the disciplinary authority to redo the proceedings in compliance with the procedural requirements.
Summary
The petitioner, a Revenue Karamchari, was suspended and later dismissed from service following departmental proceedings concerning alleged irregularities in flood‑relief distribution. He contended that the charge memo lacked particulars, no list of witnesses was provided, the enquiry report was never served, and the enquiry officer relied on unverified documents, thereby violating Rule 17(3), (4) and (14) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 and the principles of natural justice. The State argued that proper procedures were followed and the petitioner had been given an opportunity to defend himself. The High Court found that the departmental proceedings were indeed vitiated by procedural lapses and lack of evidential support, and that the disciplinary and appellate orders were not reasoned. Consequently, the court set aside both the dismissal order and the appellate order, remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority to restart the proceedings within six months, and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- The departmental proceeding complied with Rule 17(3), (4) and (14) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 regarding service of charge memo, witness list, and enquiry report.
- Whether the principles of natural justice were violated, rendering the dismissal order vitiated.
- Whether the disciplinary authority’s order of dismissal is liable to be set aside.
- The correctness of the appellate authority’s rejection of the appeal on the ground of sub‑judice.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits.
Legislation cited
- Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 — s. 17(14), 17(3), 17(4)
Subjects
- departmental proceedings
- natural justice
- Rule 17
- disciplinary action
- dismissal
- reinstatement
- Bihar civil service rules
- quashing order
- certiorari
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17862 of 2014
======================================================
Sujit Kumar S/o Late Krishna Kumar Ambastha R/o Azad Nagar Ganj
Simribakhtiyarpur and Post Office and P.S. - Simribakhtiyarpur, District-
Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Commissioner Koshi Division Saharsa, cum Appellate Authority.
3. Sub - Divisional Magistrate, Birpur.
4. Circle Officer Chhatapur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, A.C. to A.A.G.6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-05-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:
“(i) For a declaration that the entire
departmental proceeding is vitiated on account of
procedural ultra virus, infirmity, violation of
principle of natural justice as such unsustainable.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ, order, direction or writ in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the order inflicting punishment
of removal from service passed by the respondent
No-1 by order Memo No. 544-2 Dated 23.03.12
(Annexure-14).
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ, order, direction or writ in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the order dated 23.02.13 passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.17862 of 2014 dt.05-05-2026
2/14
by Appellate Authority cum Commissioner Koshi
Division Saharsa by which the order passed by
Disciplinary Authority Cum District Magistrate
Supaul was confirmed (Annexure-15).
(iv) For a consequential relief in the
nature of appropriate direction Order or writ of
mandamus, commanding the respondents to re-
instate the petitioner & grant all the consequential
benefits treating him in continuous & regular
service in the department.”
3. The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ
petition, are that the petitioner was appointed and at the relevant
time was working as Revenue Karamchari (Rajasva
Karamchari) at Chhatapur Block. Vide Letter No.308-2, dated
28.06.2009, a large number of Rajasva Karamchari were
transferred from one place to another, including the petitioner,
who was transferred from Chhatapur to Raghopur. All the
transferred persons were directed to join the new place of
posting by 30.06.2009, and in compliance thereof, the
petitioner joined at Raghopur Block on 08.07.2009. While the
petitioner was working as a Revenue Karamchari (Rajasva
Karamchari) under Chhatapur Block, illegal distribution of
flood relief work was undertaken and therefore, the petitioner
was shifted to Raghopur Block by the order of the competent
authority. A three men enquiry committee was constituted under
the Chairmanship of Additional Collector to enquire into the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17862 of 2014 dt.05-05-2026
3/14
distribution of relief materials during the flood in 2008. The
committee, after its enquiry, submitted its report, however it is
the case of the petitioner that nothing specific was found against
the petitioner. Subsequently, a high level committee was
constituted of senior I.A.S. officials. The committee found
serious lapses on the part of the Circle Officer, the Circle
Inspector, the Anchal Nazir and the Head Assistant, however
nothing was found against the petitioner. The committee
submitted its report vide Letter No.224, dated 19.01.2010,
before the Principal Secretary, Department of Disaster
Management, Government of Bihar, Patna. Pursuant thereto,
vide Memo No.41-2, dated 18.01.2010, issued under the
signature of the District Magistrate, Supaul, the petitioner along
with one Ram Jee Prasad Mandal was put under suspension and
his Headquarter was fixed at Circle Office, Marona.
Subsequently, vide Letter No.481, dated 16.03.2011, issued
under the signature of the Sub-divisional Officer, Triveniganj,
Supaul, memo of charge was issued against the petitioner,
wherein certain charges were levelled against the petitioner. The
enquiry officer and the presenting officer were appointed and
the enquiry officer vide his Memo No.870-2, dated 31.07.2011,
directed the petitioner to appear on 16.08.2011 along with his
Patna High Court CWJC No.17862 of 2014 dt.05-05-2026
4/14
reply to the show-cause. It is the case of the petitioner that,
although memo of charge was issued on 16.03.2011, but the
same was not served upon the petitioner. The same was
ultimately served upon the petitioner on 16.08.2011, after
initiation of the departmental proceeding when, he made a
complaint before the enquiry officer, with regard to non-supply
of the memo of charge. Upon the directions given by the
enquiry officer to the Circle Officer, Chhatapur-cum-Presenting
Officer, the same was finally served. The petitioner submitted
his reply to the charge memo on 22.08.2011, in absence of the
supporting documents upon which the charge was said to have
been issued. During course of the enquiry before the enquiry
officer, the presenting officer submitted Memo No.822-2, dated
29.11.2011, wherein he stated that he is satisfied with the
explanation/reply submitted by the petitioner and some others
and he forwarded the explanation/reply submitted by the
petitioner and others, to the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer,
after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report before the
disciplinary authority, whereby he found the charges levelled
against the petitioner to be proved. The disciplinary authority
vide his letter contained in Memo No.183-2, dated 10.02.2012,
directed the petitioner to file his second show-cause reply,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17862 of 2014 dt.05-05-2026
5/14
however it is the case of the petitioner that the enquiry report
was not served to the petitioner, either by the enquiry officer or
along with the second show-cause notice. He obtained the said
enquiry report through his Advocate, at the time of filing his
statutory appeal. The petitioner immediately thereafter filed his
reply to the second show-cause notice issued to him, wherein he
denied all the charges levelled against him and also requested
for exonerating the petitioner from the charged levelled against
him. The disciplinary authority, i.e., the Collector-cum-District
Magistrate, Supaul vide his order contained in Memo No.544-2,
dated 23.03.2012, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from
service from the date of issuance of the order and further
directed the Circle Officer, Chhatapur to take steps for recovery
of the amount defalcated by the petitioner. The petitioner, being
aggrieved with the order dated 23.03.2012, passed by the
disciplinary authority, proceeded to file statutory appeal before
the appellate authority, however the appellate authority, i.e., the
Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa by his impugned order
dated 23.02.2013, rejected the appeal of the petitioner stating
therein that, since the matter is sub-judice before the Vigilance,
therefore, it would not be appropriate to take any action in the
matter and he did not find any error with the report of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17862 of 2014 dt.05-05-2026
6/14
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Supaul.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted in
complete violation of the provisions contained in Rule 17(3) &
(4) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005, since along with the memo
of charge, no list of documents and witnesses were provided to
the petitioner, whom the department intended to rely during
course of the departmental proceeding. He further submits that
the enquiry report was never served upon the petitioner, rather
the same was obtained by the petitioner through his Advocate at
the time of filing the statutory appeal. He further submits that,
although the presenting officer did not find any fault with the
action of the petitioner and some other persons, for which he
filed his reply, stating therein that he is satisfied with the
explanation submitted by the petitioner and others, even then
the enquiry officer in a most mechanical manner without any
evidence found the charges to be proved against the petitioner.
He submits that the enquiry officer himself assumed the role of
the presenting officer and proved the charges on his own.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to
adduce defence in his favour and even the presenting officer did
Patna High Court CWJC No.17862 of 2014 dt.05-05-2026
7/14
not present himself for his examination. He further submits that
the enquiry officer relied on the enquiry report of the three men
committee and the high level committee, however none of the
members of the enquiry committee were produced before the
enquiry officer for their oral evidence and no opportunity was
granted to the petitioner to cross-examine them. He submits that
in absence thereof, the documents, which were relied by the
enquiry officer, were not proved by the respective authors. He
further submits that similarly situated Head Assistant Mahadev
Ram facing similar charges has been given lesser punishment,
while the petitioner was terminated from service.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the disciplinary authority in a most mechanical
manner, without even considering the reply to the second show-
cause notice, submitted by the petitioner and without even
appreciating the fact that no witnesses were produced by the
presenting officer, to prove the charges levelled against him,
passed the impugned order of punishment, whereby the
petitioner has been terminated from service. He further submits
that even the appellate authority did not consider any of the
points raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal and
rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner without any
Patna High Court CWJC No.17862 of 2014 dt.05-05-2026
8/14
consideration on the ground that since the matter is sub-judice
before the Vigilance, he did not intend to pass any order.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to
and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Punjab National Bank v.
Roop Singh Negi), wherein in paragraph nos. 14 and 23, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has 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.
23. Furthermore, the order of the
disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority
are not supported by any reason. As the orders
passed by them have severe civil consequences,
appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If
the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession
made by the appellant, there was no reason as to
Patna High Court CWJC No.17862 of 2014 dt.05-05-2026
9/14
why the order of discharge passed by the criminal
court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not
have been taken into consideration. The materials
brought on record pointing out the guilt are required
to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some
evidence, which is legally admissible. The
provisions of the Evidence Act may not be
applicable in a departmental proceeding but the
principles of natural justice are. As the report of the
enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as
also surmises and conjectures, the same could not
have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the
enquiry officer apparently were not supported by
any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however
high may be, can under no circumstances be held to
be a substitute for legal proof.”
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies upon a recent judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 (State
of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha), wherein in
paragraph no. 28, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held
as follows:
“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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17862 of 2014 dt.05-05-2026
10/14
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.”
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent-State submits that the petitioner, while
posted as the Revenue Karamchari, committed gross
irregularity in distribution of flood relief materials and he has
defalcated a huge sum, which caused loss to the State
Exchequer. He submits that all the due procedures were
followed, while initiating the departmental proceeding and a
three men committee was constituted to enquire into the matter.
The committee submitted its report, wherein certain
irregularities were found. Subsequently, a high level enquiry
committee was constituted at the level of the government and
the committee submitted its report, wherein certain
irregularities were found and pursuant thereto, the petitioner
was put under suspension and departmental proceeding was
initiated against him. He submits that the departmental
proceeding was conducted in accordance with Rule 17 of the
Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 and there is no violation of any
provisions contained therein.
10. The learned counsel for the State further
Patna High Court CWJC No.17862 of 2014 dt.05-05-2026
11/14
submits that the petitioner was given due opportunity to
participate in the departmental proceeding and he never raised
any objection with regard to any procedure lapse in conducting
the departmental proceeding. He never raised any objection
with regard to non-production of any witnesses or has never
requested the enquiry officer to adduce evidence in his favour.
He submits that the enquiry officer, after conducting enquiry,
based on the enquiry report submitted by the three men
committee and the high level committee, found the charges to
be proved against the petitioner and submitted his report before
the disciplinary authority. Even the disciplinary authority by a
reasoned and speaking order, after considering each and every
aspect, including the second show-cause reply submitted by the
petitioner, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service with
immediate effect.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the records, it appears that certain
charges were levelled against the petitioner for which a
departmental proceeding was initiated. The presenting officer
and the conducting officer were also appointed. Notices were
issued to the petitioner to appear in the departmental proceeding
and to submit his reply to the show-cause, which was duly
Patna High Court CWJC No.17862 of 2014 dt.05-05-2026
12/14
replied by the petitioner, wherein he denied all the charged
levelled against him. It further appears that while issuing memo
of charge, no statement of imputation of misconduct or
misbehaviour in support of each article of charge was given.
Further, no list of witnesses was provided with the memo of
charge. During course of the departmental proceeding, the
enquiry officer without adducing any evidence and only on the
basis of the documents, which were supplied by the presenting
officer/department, proceeded to prove the charges against the
petitioner. The enquiry officer did not take any pain to verify
the authenticity of the documents from their respective authors
and not even a single witness turned up before the enquiry
officer to support the case of the prosecution. Even the
presenting officer by his written explanation/reply stated that he
is satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner and
some others, however the enquiry officer on his own
presumption found the charge to be proved against the
petitioner. The petitioner was never provided with a copy of the
enquiry report and this fact was not disputed by the
Respondent-State. Further, the disciplinary authority, i.e., the
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Supaul without uttering a
single word about the explanation submitted by the petitioner,
Patna High Court CWJC No.17862 of 2014 dt.05-05-2026
13/14
proceeded to pass the order of dismissal against the petitioner.
The entire departmental proceeding was conducted in complete
violation of the provisions contained in Rule 17(3), (4) and (14)
of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. The departmental proceeding
itself is vitiated on the ground that none of the witnesses
supported the case of the department. No witness turned up to
support the case of the prosecution or the documents, the
enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and even the
presenting officer did not support the case of prosecution.
12. From the consideration made above, this Court
is of the opinion that the impugned order contained in Memo
No.544-2, dated 23.03.2012 and the order dated 23.02.2013,
passed in Service Appeal No.155/2012, by the Collector-cum-
District Magistrate, Supaul and the Commissioner, Koshi
Division, Saharsa respectively deserves to be set aside and are
accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the defective
stage, i.e., from the issuance of memo of charge and to conclude
the entire proceeding within a period of six months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.
13. With the aforementioned observation and
direction, the present writ petition is allowed. Pending
Patna High Court CWJC No.17862 of 2014 dt.05-05-2026
14/14
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
14. After the order was dictated in Court, it was
informed at Bar that during pendency of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has superannuated in the year 2023.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08.05.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.