Patna High Court
Bishnudeo Prasad SinghversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The disciplinary order withholding the petitioner’s increment is void as the departmental enquiry was conducted without any evidence and in violation of the procedural safeguards mandated by the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and principles of natural justice.
Summary
The petitioner, a government clerk, was subjected to a departmental proceeding stemming from a 2001 vigilance complaint alleging corruption in a housing scheme. Although he was acquitted of all criminal charges in 2017, the department, after an 11‑year delay, issued an order in January 2018 withholding one increment and revoking his suspension just two days before his retirement. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing violations of Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, lack of any witness evidence, and breach of natural‑justice principles, while the State contended that the disciplinary authority acted within its powers. The High Court held that the enquiry was conducted without any admissible evidence, contravened statutory procedural requirements, and therefore the punishment was unsustainable. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, directed restoration of all increments, full pension, and payment of arrears, and declined to remit the matter for a fresh enquiry. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental enquiry conducted under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 complied with the principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements of Rule 17.
- Whether the disciplinary authority can impose a penalty on the basis of no evidence, especially when the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case.
- Whether the petitioner was required to exhaust the alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner before approaching the High Court under Article 226.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 311
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 409, 420, 467, 471, 477(A)
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Subjects
- departmental enquiry
- natural justice
- due process
- service law
- increment withholding
- Article 226
- Article 311
- Rule 17 Bihar CCA Rules
- evidence
- punishment without evidence
- retirement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18295 of 2018
======================================================
Bishnudeo Prasad Singh Son of Sri Sita Ram Prasad Singh Resident of
Supasang, P.S. Wena, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The District Magistrate Saran at Chapra.
3. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Majid Mahboob Khan, Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Md. Nadeem Seraj- GP-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 22-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“1. That petitioner seeks indulgence of this
Hon'ble court for quashing the office order
no. 34/2018 contained in memo no. 125
dated 29.1.2018 issued under the signature
of District Magistrate Chapra by which
punishment of withholding of increment
with non cumulative effect has been passed
just two days before superannuation and
after eleven years of submission of enquiry
report and after about five months from
acquittal in criminal case And further for
issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent to
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
2/23
pay and provide all the consequential
benefits and further for issuance of a
writ/writs command/ commands , directions
/directions, order / orders as your lordship
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
Brief Facts of the Case
3. The brief fact which are necessary for adjudication
of the present case are that while the petitioner was posted as
Account-cum-in-charge clerk in Revil Ganj Block office in the
Distrct of Saran at Chapra, a complaint case bearing Complaint
Case No. 31 of 2001 was filed before the Special Court
(Vigilance) North Bihar, Muzaffarpur, with an allegation that the
then Block Development Officer, in collusion with other
employees of the block, committed illegality in allotment of
Indra Awas Yojana and embezzled government fund. After
preliminary enquiry, vigilance case bearing Vigilance P.S. Case
No.01 of 2002 was instituted against the petitioner and others,
wherein charge-sheet was submitted vide charge-sheet no. 247
of 2007 and thereafter cognizance was taken on 14.07.2010 for
the same set of charges. A departmental proceeding was also
initiated against the petitioner and memo of charge was issued to
him, vide Memo No. 256 dated 10.02.2006. Certain charges
were leveled against the petitioner. Prior to that vide memo no.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
3/23
563 dated 28.05.2001, issued under the signature of the District
Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, the petitioner and two other
persons were put under suspension in view of lodging of
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 01 of 2001. Subsequently, vide memo
no. 213 dated 9.2.2002, issued under the signature of the District
Collector Establishment, Saran at Chapra, the suspension of the
petitioner was revoked and it was further directed that the
departmental proceeding against the petitioner will continue and
the decision on payment of salary for the period under
suspension, will be taken after finalization of the criminal case
lodged against him. A show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner and the petitioner in compliance thereof, submitted his
reply to the show-cause notice on 22.05.2006, wherein he
specifically denied all the charges leveled against him and
requested for exonerating him from the charges. The Enquiry
Officer and the Presiding Officer were appointed and the
proceeding against the petitioner was started on 9.5.2006. In the
departmental proceeding, the Presenting Officer presented the
case of the department, while the petitioner appeared and
pleaded his innocence before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry
Officer after conducting enquiry submitted his report before the
disciplinary authority on 18.10.2006, wherein he found the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
4/23
charges leveled against the petitioner, to be proved. Second
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the
disciplinary authority vide memo no.139 dated 18.01.2007. The
petitioner immediately thereafter submitted his reply before the
disciplinary authority on 9.2.2007, wherein he denied all the
charges, which were leveled against him and requested the
disciplinary authority to exonerate him from all the charges,
which were leveled against him. Subsequently, the petitioner
surrendered before the competent court on 8.5.2013 and was
subsequently released on bail on 3.7.2013. After his release from
jail, the petitioner gave his joining on 5.7.2013. The petitioner
was again put under suspension vide office order no. 230 of
2013 contained in memo no. 910, dated 15.7.2013,
retrospectively w.e.f. 8.5.2013 i.e. the date on which the
petitioner surrendered before the competent court. Vide memo
no. 1565 dated 22.11.2013 issued under the signature of the
District Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra, while taking note of the
earlier suspension order dated 15.7.2013, whereby the petitioner
was retrospectively put under suspension w.e.f. 8.5.2013 and the
fact that the petitioner, after his release from jail gave his joining
on 5.7.2013, was again put under suspension with immediate
effect and it was directed that during period of suspension, he
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
5/23
will be given subsistence allowance and his headquarter, during
period of suspension was fixed at Mashrakh Block. It was
further recorded that the departmental proceeding against the
petitioner be concluded at the earliest. No action was taken by
the disciplinary authority on the Enquiry Report submitted by
the Enquiry Officer on 18.10.2006 for almost 11 years and all of
a sudden by the impugned order contained in memo no.125
dated 29.1.2018 i.e. after almost 11 years of the submission of
the Enquiry Report, the disciplinary authority, only two days
prior to the retirement of the petitioner, proceeded to pass the
order of punishment, whereby minor punishment of withholding
of one increment with non-cumulative effect was passed against
the petitioner. Simultaneously, the order of suspension of the
petitioner was also revoked by the said impugned order dated
29.1.2018 and he was posted at Sadar Sub-division, Chapra and
was directed to give his joining at the earliest.
Submission on Behalf of the Petitioner
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
on the basis of the allegations leveled and the petitioner and
some others, a departmental proceeding was initiated by
issuance of memo of charge on 10.02.2006, however alongwith
the memo of charge, no list of witnesses or imputations were
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
6/23
given to the petitioner, which is in complete violation of the
provisions contained in Rule 17(3) & (4) of the Bihar CCA
Rules, 2005.
5. He further submits that even the Enquiry Officer
during course of enquiry, without following the due process of
law, found the charges leveled against the petitioner to be
proved, only on the basis of the submission of the Presenting
Officer and on the basis of the accusations made against the
petitioner in the Criminal Case bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No.
01 of 2001. He submits that no witnesses were adduced on
behalf of the Presenting Officer and the documents, which have
been mentioned in the Enquiry Report, were never proved by
their respective authors and even the petitioner was not given
any opportunity to adduce any evidence/witness in his behalf.
He submits that the entire departmental proceeding proceeded
without following the due process of law and the present case is
a case of no evidence.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the entire departmental proceeding vitiated on the
ground that the provisions contained under Rule 17 of the Bihar
CCA Rules, were never followed. He further submits that
although, the First Information Report was lodged against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
7/23
petitioner in 2001, and charge sheet was submitted in 2007,
however, the departmental proceedings was initiated against the
petitioner on the same allegation, on which the criminal case
was lodged. He submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the
criminal case, which was lodged against him bearing Vigilance
P.S. Case No. 01 of 2001 which gave rise to Special Case No. 55
of 2002. The learned Trial Court i.e. the Special Judge
(Vigilance), North Bihar, Muzaffarpur by a detailed judgment
dated 25.8.2017 passed in Special Case No. 55 of 2002 proceed
to record that the accused persons are held not to be guilty for
commission of offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 471, 477
(A) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1) (d)
read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, due
to lack of evidence.
7. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the basis of initiation of departmental proceeding was the
lodging of the criminal case, in which the petitioner has been
acquitted on 25.8.2017 and the entire departmental proceeding
was conducted on the basis of the said complaint, which was
lodged by complainant which gave rise to Vigilance P.S. Case
No.01 of 2001. He submits that the even during course of
departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer relied upon the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
8/23
charges which were leveled against the petitioner in Vigilance
Case and relied upon the first information report of the said
Vigilance Case.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of
his contention refers to and relies upon a judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of (Punjab
National Bank and Others Vs Roop Singh Negi & Ors.)
reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570, wherein in paragraph nos. 14 &
23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
9/23
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
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.”
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
10/23
petitioner further refers to and relies upon a judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of (State of Uttar
Pradesh Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha), reported in 2010 (2) SCC
772 wherein in paragraph nos. 27, 28 and 30, it has been held as
follows:-
“27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-
rule shows that when the respondent had
failed to submit the explanation to the
charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the
inquiry officer to fix a date for his
appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a
case when the government servant despite
notice of the date fixed failed to appear that
the inquiry officer can proceed with the
inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances
it is incumbent on the inquiry officer to
record the statement of witnesses mentioned
in the charge-sheet. Since the government
servant is absent, he would clearly lose the
benefit of cross-examination of the
witnesses. But nonetheless in order to
establish the charges the Department is
required to produce the necessary evidence
before the inquiry officer. This is so as to
avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has
acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge.”
“28. An inquiry officer acting in a
quasijudicial authority is in the position of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
11/23
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 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.”
“30. When a departmental enquiry is
conducted against the government servant it
cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The
enquiry proceedings also cannot be
conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry
officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules
of natural justice are required to be
observed to ensure not only that justice is
done but is manifestly seen to be done. The
object of rules of natural justice is to ensure
that a government servant is treated fairly in
proceedings which may culminate in
imposition of punishment including
dismissal/removal from service.”
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
12/23
refers to and relies upon a judgment dated 20.01.2025 passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.183 of
2025, (Bhupinderpal Singh Gill Vs State of Punjab and
Others) whereby in paragraph nos. 12 and 33, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has held as follows.
“12. Mr. Patwalia also submitted that the
appellant having been in public service in
excess of three decades without blemish,
the governmental action of initiating
disciplinary proceedings a few days prior
to his retirement and imposing on him the
unwarranted penalty of ordering of a cut in
pension, which is the source of his
sustenance in the winter years of his life, is
absolutely arbitrary apart from smacking
of mala fide, which the High Court failed to
take note of. He, thus, prayed that the
orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the
Single Judge and the Division Bench be set
aside and all benefits be restored in favour
of the appellant to which he was
legitimately entitled.”
33. Certain generic principles governing
interference with orders of punishment that
are passed following inquiry proceedings
have evolved over a period of time. Law is
well settled that an administrative order
punishing a delinquent employee is not
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
13/23
ordinarily subject to correction in judicial
review because the disciplinary authority is
the sole judge of facts. If there is some
legal evidence on which the findings can be
based, then adequacy or even reliability of
that evidence is not a matter for canvassing
before the high court in a writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
However, should on consideration of the
materials on record, the court be satisfied
that there has been a violation of the
principles of natural justice, or that the
inquiry proceedings have been conducted
contrary to statutory regulations
prescribing the mode of such inquiry, or
that the ultimate decision of the
disciplinary authority is vitiated by
considerations extraneous to the evidence
and merits of the case, or that the
conclusion of the disciplinary authority is
ex facie arbitrary or capricious, so much so
that no reasonable person could have
arrived at such conclusion, or there is any
other ground very similar to the above, the
high court may in the exercise of its
discretion interfere to set things right. After
all, public servants to whom Article 311 of
the Constitution apply do enjoy certain
procedural safeguards, enforcement of
which by the high court can legitimately be
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
14/23
urged by such servants depending upon the
extent of breach that is manifestly
demonstrated.”
Submission on Behalf of the Respondent-State
11. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents-State submits that the petitioner, along with two
others was made an accused in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 01 of
2001, which gave rise to Special Case No.55 of 2002. Based on
the said accusation of the petitioner in the criminal case, a
decision was taken to initiate departmental proceedings against
him by the department and accordingly memo of charge was
issued to him on 10.02.2006. The Enquiry Officer and the
Presenting Officer were appointed. The petitioner was given due
opportunity to participate in the departmental proceeding and
after a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to submit
his report before the disciplinary authority on 18.10.2006. The
petitioner was put under suspension twice on account of lodging
of criminal case against him and on account of him being put
behind bars. Finally, the impugned order of punishment was
passed against him by the disciplinary authority on 29.01.2018,
whereby the disciplinary authority proceeded to award
punishment of withholding of one increment with non-
cumulative effect against the petitioner. He submits that against
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
15/23
the order dated 29.1.2018, the petitioner has got an alternative
remedy of filling an appeal before the Commissioner, Saran
Division, however, the petitioner without availing the said
alternative remedy, approached this Hon’ble Court by filling the
present writ petition. He finally submits that the order passed by
the disciplinary authority does not requires any interference by
this Hon’ble Court, since the order passed by the disciplinary
authority is in terms of the provisions contained in the Bihar
CCA Rules, 2005.
CONSIDERATION
12. Having considered the rival submissions and
after going through the records, it appears that a complaint was
filed against the petitioner, which gave rise to Vigilance P.S.
Case No. 01 of 2001. After enquiry, charge sheet was submitted
against the petitioner vide charge sheet no. 247 of 2007 and
thereafter cognizance was taken against him on 14.07.2010. A
decision was taken at the level of department for initiation of
departmental proceeding against the petitioner and subsequent
thereto memo of charge was served upon the petitioner on
10.02.2006, for the charges mentioned therein, however, the
memo of charge does not contain the list of witness or the
imputation of charge, in terms of provisions contained in Rules
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
16/23
17 (3) and (4) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Further, during
course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer only on the basis of the
submissions and by relying upon the accusation made against
the petitioner in the vigilance case and certain documents, which
were provided/presented by the Presenting Officer, found the
petitioner to be guilty of the charges leveled against him and he
found the charge against the petitioner to be proved. In the entire
departmental proceeding, no witnesses were examined on behalf
of the Presenting Officer/the Department and since no witness
was examined, there is no question of the documents being
proved by their respective authors. Further, the petitioner was
not given any opportunity in terms of Rule 17(14) of the Bihar
CCA Rules, 2005 to cross-examination or to adduce the witness
on his behalf and the entire departmental proceeding was
conducted against the petitioner in complete violation of the
provision contained in Rule 17(3), (4) and (14) of the Bihar
CCA Rules, 2005. Further, the Enquiry Officer on the basis of
allegation leveled against the petitioner in the vigilance case,
proceeded to hold him guilty of the charges leveled against him.
The entire departmental proceeding is of no evidence. The law
in this regard is very much settled that this court under Article
226 can interfere in cases, even if alternative remedy are
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
17/23
available and when the entire departmental proceeding was
conducted in complete violation of the provisions contained
under law and the case is of no evidence. The present case is a
glaring example of the said provision, since in the entire
departmental proceeding, no witnesses were adduced and the
Enquiry Officer only on the basis of the allegations against the
petitioner in the vigilance case proceeded to found the charges
to be proved against the petitioner. This Court is conscious of
the fact that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy.
13. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of (Jai Prakash Saini Vs. Managing
Director U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. And Ors.)
reported in 2026 (3) PLJR 125 SC, wherein in paragraph nos.
17 and 18, it has been held as follows:-
“17. From the decisions of this Court in Sur
Enamel (supra): (AIR 1963 SC 1914) and
Kharak Singh (supra): (2008 AIR SCW
7507), followed in Chamoli District
Cooperative (supra): (AIR 2016 SC 2510),
which deals with similar service rules as are
applicable here, it is now settled that unless
the charged employee accepts his guilt in
clear terms, an enquiry on the charges
drawn against him would have to be held. In
the enquiry, the employer/department would
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
18/23
have to take steps first to lead evidence
against the workmen/delinquent charged
and give an opportunity to him to cross
examine those witnesses. Only thereafter, the
workmen /delinquent shall be asked whether
he wants to lead any evidence and/or submit
an explanation about the evidence led
against him. Even in a case based solely on
documentary evidence, unless the relied
upon documents are admitted by the
charged employee, a witness would have to
be examined to prove those documents and
when so examined, the witness would have
to be tendered for cross-examination.”
“18. In the instant case, we find that the
department had not produced any witness in
the enquiry even though the charges levelled
upon the appellant were denied by him.
Therefore, in our view, the enquiry stood
vitiated. Once the enquiry stood vitiated, the
consequential order of punishment/recovery
cannot be sustained. We therefore allow this
appeal. The impugned judgment and order
of the High Court is set aside. The writ
petition of the appellant stands allowed to
the extent indicated below. The order of
dismissal and consequential recovery is set
aside. The Federation is, however, at liberty
to hold a de novo enquiry, if it so desires,
within a period of six months from the date
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
19/23
of this order. If the Federation does not hold
de novo enquiry as permitted above, the
appellant shall be entitled to reinstatement
with benefit of continuity in service
including arrears of salary after adjusting
suspension allowance, if any, paid already.
In case the Federation chooses to hold an
enquiry, it shall reinstate the appellant and
place him under suspension till completion
of the enquiry and during this period pay
suspension allowance as may be payable in
accordance with law. In case de novo
enquiry is held, other service benefits
including arrears of salary as well as
benefits of continuity in service shall depend
on the outcome of the enquiry.”
14. From the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, it transpires that even if the charges are leveled against
delinquent and he did not participate in the proceeding and the
proceeding had conducted ex-parte, even then the documents
which are relied upon by the department, needs to be proved at
the level of the department and in absence thereof the charges
cannot be said to be proved. In the present case, since none of
the witnesses have been examined and the Enquiry Officer, only
on the basis of the document adduced on behalf of the
department and the accusations leveled in the Vigilance case has
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
20/23
proceeded to prove the charges against petitioner, therefore, it
cannot be said that the departmental proceedings was conducted
in accordance with law.
15. Considering the above mentioned facts, this Court
is of considered opinion that the entire departmental enquiry
conducted against the petitioner is farce and is of no evidence.
Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment contained in
memo no.125 dated 29.01.2018, issued under the signature of
the District Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra is set aside. Since the
petitioner has retired on 31.01.2018 and the punishment order
was passed on 29.01.2018, this Court is not remitting the matter
back to the respondent authorities for proceeding afresh. This
Court is conscious of the fact that the departmental proceeding
against the petitioner was initiated in 2006, based on the
complaint filed by the complainant in 2001 and now after 20
years, there is no justification in remitting the matter back to the
respondent authorities for proceeding afresh in accordance with
law.
16. The High Court under Article 226/227 is entitled
to interfere when the finding of fact is based on no evidence and
if in every case where no valid evidence is laid at the enquiry
proceeding, there is a remand made, it would be offering a
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
21/23
premium to of the the negligence management/disciplinary
authority and condoning the levity with which the departmental
enquiry was conducted. It is the disciplinary authority, who
appoints the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer and it is
expected that the Presenting Officer would be well versed in the
procedures and also be informed in the manner in which
evidence has to be laid before the Enquiry Officer, to prove the
misconduct, alleged against a delinquent employee. In a
disciplinary enquiry proceeding, it is also the trite principle that
the standard of proof is preponderance of probability as
distinguished from proof beyond reasonable doubt, as would be
required in a criminal prosecution. However, if there is no
evidence laid at the enquiry, there is no question of any
preponderance of probability being drawn to find the allegations
proved nor can the delinquent be penalised on the basis of
peremptory finding without any valid evidence. The disciplinary
authority had an opportunity in a properly constituted enquiry
proceeding and if in such a proceeding no evidence was laid, the
punishment of dismissal has to be found to be imposed on no
valid evidence.
17. The petitioner is held entitled for grant of all the
increments, for which he was entitled, prior to passing of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
22/23
impugned order of punishment dated 29.01.2018. Respondent
authorities are directed to re-work the entitlement of the
petitioner, for which he was entitled, prior to passing of the
impugned order dated 29.01.2018, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the
order. The consequential benefits arising out of the same must
be paid to the petitioner within a further period of one month,
thereafter. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that till date, the petitioner is receiving 90 % of the
pension, therefore the respondent authorities are further directed
to restore the pension of the petitioner to his full entitlement of
100% and to make payment of the arrears thereupon within the
above mentioned period of three months. The respondent
authorities are further directed to take decision with regard to
payment of salary to the petitioner for the period during which
he remained under suspension, after deducting the subsistence
allowance, if any, paid to the petitioner during the period of
suspension within the aforementioned period of three months,
since no decision has been taken on the said aspect in the
impugned order dated 29.01.2018.
18. With the aforementioned directions, writ petition
is allowed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18295 of 2018(2) dt.22-06-2026
23/23
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
shital/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.