Patna High Court
Kalawati KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that the punishment had already lapsed and therefore the writ petition seeking its quash was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, a Police Sub‑Inspector, was punished with a six‑month withholding of increment for allegedly failing to complete a rape‑related investigation within the prescribed 60‑day period. She challenged the punishment by filing a writ petition seeking quashing of the disciplinary order dated 11‑12‑2020 and the appellate order of 14‑06‑2021, arguing that the departmental proceedings violated natural justice and that her reply was ignored. The State contended that the punishment was a valid minor punishment under Rule 19 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, and that due process was observed. The Court examined the record and noted that the period of the minor punishment had already expired by the time the petition was filed. Consequently, the Court held that there was no ground for interference and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the minor punishment imposed on the petitioner complied with the procedural requirements of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, including the need for a show‑cause notice and observance of natural justice.
- Whether a writ petition for quashing a disciplinary order is maintainable after the period of the imposed punishment has already lapsed.
- Whether the departmental enquiry findings and the subsequent appellate order were legally sound.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376, 420, 506
- Information Technology Act — s. 67
Subjects
- departmental punishment
- minor punishment
- show cause notice
- natural justice
- police service
- writ petition
- Bihar CCA Rules
- lapse of punishment period
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1796 of 2022
======================================================
Kalawati Kumari W/o Arun Kumar, Resident of Village - Jehangirpur,
Karehari, Arwal, P.S.- Parsabigha, District - Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police Bihar, Patna.
3. The D.I.G of Police Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Sheohar.
5. Shashi Shankar Kumar, then Dy. S.P. cum Conducting Officer, Sheohar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad (SC-8)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing of the order dated 11-12-2020 passed by
Superintendent of Police, Sheohar, whereby and where under the
petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of withholding
of increment of six months which is equivalent to one black
mark without cumulative effects. Further, for quashing of the
order dated 14-06-2021 passed by Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur, whereby and where under the
appeal of the petitioner has also been rejected. Further prayer has
also been made for grant of all consequential benefits to the
petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1796 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
2/4
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was appointed on the post of Police Sub-Inspector
on 01.07.2009 and she was posted at Sheohar as S.H.O of
Mahila Police Station, Sheohar on 27.01.2019. He submits that
on 09.02.2020, a case was registered at Mahila Police Station,
Sheohar bearing Mahila P.S. Case No. 03 of 2020, under
sections 376/420/506 of the IPC and section 67 of the I.T. Act, in
which the petitioner was the S.H.O and according to the
procedure, it was to be investigated by an officer not below the
rank of Inspector. But, there was no female police officer at the
rank of Inspector in the district so, it was handed over to the
petitioner for investigation and she took the task of Investigating
Officer of the case. Counsel submits that the petitioner received
direction from the S.P, Sheohar to conclude the investigation in
due time period of 60 days as prescribed in the procedure for the
offence under section 376 of the IPC. Thereafter, an explanation
was sought for from the petitioner through S.P., Sheohar, as to
why the investigation was not concluded within a period of 60
days as per the procedure. Counsel further submits that the
petitioner filed her reply stating all the points as to why there
was delay in concluding the investigation, but the S.P., Sheohar
found it to be unsatisfactory and implicated the petitioner under
departmental enquiry after suspension. The charges were framed
Patna High Court CWJC No.1796 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
3/4
against the petitioner. Firstly, alleging that why the investigation
was not concluded within 60 days as per the procedure. The
second charge is that the delinquent was directed to arrest the
accused and submit the investigation report as the offence was
found to be true, but the delinquent failed to do so. And with
other charges, an enquiry was conducted and finding of the
Enquiry Officer was against the present petitioner. Subsequently,
the punishment order has been imposed upon the petitioner dated
11-12-2020. Though, it is a minor punishment which was
challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, but
the Appellate Authority has also approved the same. Counsel
submits that Annexure-3 is the reply of the petitioner which has
not been taken into consideration and therefore, the entire
departmental proceeding is bad in law.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
submits that the punishment was valid for six months and
imposed upon the petitioner following the due process of law
and completely in compliance of principles of natural justice.
Counsel submits that according to Rule 19 of the Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bihar CCA Rules, 2005’), the
minor punishment may be imposed only upon demanding show
cause. But, here in the present case, being the precautionary
Patna High Court CWJC No.1796 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
4/4
measure, a full fledged departmental proceeding has been
conducted. Counsel therefore submits that there is no need of
any interference by this Court in this matter.
5. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the
order of punishment is dated 11.12.2020 by which a minor
punishment required to end within six months, has been
imposed. The appellate order has also been passed on
14.06.2021 upholding the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 11.12.2020 and thereafter, the present writ
petition has been filed in the month of February, 2022 i.e. after
lapse of about six months from the date of appellate order.
6. It transpires to this Court that the period of
punishment has already been lapsed and after the lapse of period,
the present case has been filed. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in this matter as the punishment as already
been acted upon. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22/01/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…