Patna High Court
Vijay Kumar JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court upheld the validity of the disciplinary proceedings but modified the punishment to a non‑cumulative withholding of two annual increments, thereby refusing to quash the order.
Summary
The petitioner, an Assistant Sub‑Inspector, was accused of demanding money to release vehicles based on a viral audio clip. He was suspended, faced departmental proceedings, and was ultimately punished by withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the departmental order, the appellate rejection, and the inquiry report, alleging procedural irregularities, lack of evidence, and violation of natural justice under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The State argued that the petitioner’s voice was identified, he admitted the clip, and that due process, including cross‑examination, was afforded. The High Court found the disciplinary inquiry substantively valid but held the punishment excessive, modifying it to a non‑cumulative withholding of two increments, and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental proceedings complied with the procedural requirements of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, particularly Rule 17(3).
- Whether the inquiry report was tainted by violation of natural justice, such as lack of cross‑examination and failure to produce the original audio.
- Whether the punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect is proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
- Whether the disciplinary order and its appellate affirmation can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under the writ petition.
Subjects
- departmental inquiry
- natural justice
- punishment
- police misconduct
- Bihar Government Servants Rules
- proportionality
- certiorari
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1925 of 2022
======================================================
Vijay Kumar Jha Son of Satya Narayan Jha, Resident of S.S.P. Office, R.T.I.
Section, Police Station-Kotwali, District- Gaya, at Present Resident of
Vilalge- Madhuban, Police Station- Kanti, District-Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Poloce (Traffic)-Cum-Inquiry Officer, Bihar
Sharif, Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vipin Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Aakash Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Md. Nadim Seraj (GP-5)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 20-02-2026
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner with the following reliefs:-
“I. For issuance of writ in
nature of certiorari for quashing of Nalanda
District order no. 1325 of 2021 in
departmental proceedings number 04 of
2021 contained in memo no. 4424 dated
23.07.2021 issued by Superintendent of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1925 of 2022 dt.20-02-2026
2/11
Police, Nalanda, whereby the petitioner has
been subjected to the punishment of
withholding of two annual increments with
cumulative effect and no payment during the
suspension period except the subsistence
allowance.
II. For issuance of writ in
nature of certiorari for quashing of the
Nalanda District Order No. 1947 of 2021
contained in Memo No. 6909 dated
21.11.2021 issued by the Superintendent of
Police, Nalanda which is communicated to
the petitioner that appeal preferred by him
against the District Order no. 1325 of 2021
has been rejected.
III. For issuance of writ in
the nature of certiorari for quashing of the
inquiry report dated 18.06.2021 submitted
by the Inquiry Officer-TYSP (Traffic) Bihar
Sharif, Nalanda whereby the charge of viral
audio of the petitioner for demand of illegal
gratification to release the vehicles is found
to be proved in absence of cogent evidence
to support and corroborate the charge and
without considering the explanation of the
petitioner in correct perspective.
IV. For holding that the
whole Departmental Proceeding including
the order of punishment is vitiated and
unsustainable on account of not following
Patna High Court CWJC No.1925 of 2022 dt.20-02-2026
3/11
the mandatory procedures prescribed by law
particularly the provisions of Bihar
Government Servants (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as the CCA Rules, 2005).
V. For issuance of any other
appropriate writ, order or direction which
your Lordships may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector
at Deepnagar P.S., an audio clip became viral on social media
wherein the police officer was demanding money in lieu of
releasing four vehicles. He submits that S.D.P.O., Sadar,
Nalanda, after inquiring into the matter issued letter No.357
dated 23.01.2021 to the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda,
claiming that the voice of the police officer in the
aforementioned audio clip is of the petitioner and further
requested to initiate appropriate proceedings against him.
Counsel submits that petitioner was suspended on subsistence
allowance vide Nalanda District order No.129 dated 2401.2021.
Counsel submits that the petitioner was then asked to submit his
response to the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, vide
Memo No.737 dated 08.02.2021, the petitioner submitted a
detailed response through letter dated 15.02.2021. He submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.1925 of 2022 dt.20-02-2026
4/11
that departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner
vide Nalanda District Order No.340 of 2021. Counsel submits
that the petitioner submitted a letter to the authority concerned
to take back his suspension. However, the same was rejected
and accordingly directions were issued to initiate departmental
proceeding vide Nalanda District order No.391 of 2021 dated
05.03.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner served three letters, two
of them were served to S.P. Naldana while one was served to
Operating Officer-cum-Vice President, Traffic, stating his
defence for setting aside and discharging the departmental
proceeding initiated against him. Counsel submits that
respondent No.4 submitted his inquiry report dated 18.06.2021
by which he came to the conclusion that the charges levelled
against the petitioner are genuine and stands proved.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that on the basis of the inquiry report, the petitioner was
directed to submit his final response by Superintendent of
Police, Nalanda, vide Memo No.3753 dated 29.06.2021.
Thereafter, the petitioner vide his letter dated 13.07.2021
submitted a response to the S.P. Nalanda, reiterating his defence
along with raising objections for quashing the proceeding.
Counsel submits that vide Nalanda District Order No.1325 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1925 of 2022 dt.20-02-2026
5/11
2021, Memo No.4424 dated 23.07.2021, the petitioner was held
liable for the charges levelled against him and punishment of
withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect
along with no payment of salary except subsistence allowance
was accorded to the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner filed
appeal before the I.G. Patna on 18.09.2021 against the aforesaid
order and the same was rejected and notified through Nalanda
District Order No.1947 of 2021 dated 21.11.2021. Counsel
submits that the charges framed against the petitioner is vague
and not specific because there is absence of registration number
of the vehicle and the name of the drivers of the said vehicles,
which is illegal and unsustainable in view of Rule 17(3) of the
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal)
Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCA Rules, 2005’).
Counsel submits that no relevant witness has been examined
during the inquiry and only formal witnesses, who identified the
documents and signatures, were examined. Counsel submits that
the inquiry/conducting officer had not taken step to procure the
original copy of audio from the F.S.L. As such, the charges
levelled against the petitioner were merely proved on the basis
of surmises and conjunctures. Counsel submits that the inquiry
officer submitted his final report without cross-examining the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1925 of 2022 dt.20-02-2026
6/11
witnesses during departmental proceeding even though the
petitioner raised this point in his statement submitted before the
conducting inquiry officer. Counsel submits that the inquiry
officer has submitted the report without adhering to the
principles of natural justice, more particularly right to cross-
examine the witnesses during the course of departmental
proceeding despite having raised this point in his written
statement submitted before the conducting officer. He submitted
that the petitioner has been subjected to major punishment of
withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect,
which is quite disproportionate to the charges levelled against
him. Counsel further submits that in the light of the glaring
discrepancies in the departmental proceedings the petitioner
must be acquitted from the said charge and the punishment
imposed on him should be removed.
5. Learned Counsel for the State-respondents, on
the other hand, submits that while the petitioner was posted as
Assistant Sub-Inspector at Deepnagar P.S., an audio clip became
viral on social media wherein the police officer was demanding
money in lieu of releasing four vehicles. He submits that on
perusal of the viral audio, it transpires that some vehicle were
intercepted and to release the same Rs.300/- for each vehicle
Patna High Court CWJC No.1925 of 2022 dt.20-02-2026
7/11
was being demanded from the concerned persons. The
concerned driver of the vehicle was ready to give Rs.200/- per
vehicle for releasing the same, upon which threatening was
given by the police officers. Thereafter, the matter was inquired
by the S.D.P.O., Sadar, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda, and in course of
that the concerned audio clip was displayed before the
petitioner, whose voice was identified in the said viral audio clip
and during enquiry it was admitted by the petitioner that the said
audio clip relates to him, but the same is old one. He submits
that from the audio clip the voice of the petitioner was tallied.
Thereafter, considering the seriousness of the matter, which
amounts to tarnish the reputation of the police in public,
recommendation was made by the S.D.P.O., Sadar, Bihar Sharif,
Nalanda, vide Memo No.357 dated 23.01.2021 to the
Superintendent of Police, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda. Counsel
submits that in the light of the recommendation of the S.D.P.O.
and considering the gravity of the allegation against the
petitioner, the petitioner was put under suspension vide Nalanda
District Order No.129/2021 contained in Memo No.543 dated
24.01.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to submit show
cause vide Memo No.737 dated 08.02.2021. Counsel submits
that in response to the notice the petitioner submitted his
Patna High Court CWJC No.1925 of 2022 dt.20-02-2026
8/11
explanation on 15.02.2021 with denial of the charges framed
against him and claimed that the concerned audio clip is edited
and fake. However, being dissatisfied with the explanation of
the petitioner, a decision was taken by respondent No.4 to
initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner and for
that Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police
(Traffic), Bihar Sharif, Nalanda, was nominated as conducting
officer and A.S.I. Sri Ramjeet Chaudhary as presenting officer
of the departmental enquiry vide Nalanda District Order
No.340/2021 contained in Memo No.1212 dated 26.02.2021. He
submits that vide Nalanda District Order No.391/2021 contained
in Memo No.1386 dated 05.03.2021, the suspension of the
petitioner was revoked and the departmental proceeding was
directed to be initiated. He submits that in course of
departmental enquiry, the petitioner was given ample
opportunity to defend him and cross-examine the witnesses, but
he denied to cross-examine the witnesses and in support of
defence, the petitioner repeated the explanation without any
reliable and convincing evidence and, then, after thorough
enquiry the petitioner was held guilty of the charges framed
against him. Counsel submits that in the light of the enquiry
report, the petitioner was asked to submit last defense
Patna High Court CWJC No.1925 of 2022 dt.20-02-2026
9/11
explanation vide Memo No.3753 dated 29.06.2021 issued by
the respondent No.4. Counsel submits that considering the
entire aspect of the matter and the evidences available on
record, the petitioner was found guilty and accordingly, vide
Nalanda District Order No.1325 dated 23.07.2021, contained in
Memo No.4424, awarded punishment to the petitioner
withholding of his two annual increments with cumulative effect
and no payment for the period of suspension except subsistence
allowance will be given. Counsel submits that the said
punishment order was assailed by the petitioner before the
Inspector General, Central Range, Patna, by way of filing appeal
but the same was dismissed with observation that no concrete
evidence has been adduced by the petitioner in the memo of
appeal on the basis of which the order passed by the disciplinary
authority may not be interfered vide order as contained in Memo
No.2551 dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Inspector General,
Central Range, Patna and consequent order vide Nalanda
District Order No.1947/2021 contained in Memo No.6909 dated
21.11.2021. He further submits that the punishment awarded
upon the petitioner is proper, legal and justified and it requires
no interference in view of the facts that the act of the petitioner
is very serious by which, reputation of the police department has
Patna High Court CWJC No.1925 of 2022 dt.20-02-2026
10/11
been tarnished in the eyes of the society. He submits that in view
of the facts and circumstances as referred above, this writ
petition has got no merit and is fit to be dismissed.
6. Upon hearing the parties, it transpires to this
Court that in the departmental proceeding charges have been
framed with allegation of demand of money. In the departmental
proceeding, proper opportunity has been provided to the
petitioner to defend himself. Nowhere it has been alleged that
there is a procedural mistake in conduction of departmental
proceeding. The Forensic Science Laboratory report with
regard to audio clip has been taken, opportunity of examination
and cross-examination have been provided to him. The only
point that original copy of audio from the FSL has not been
provided. In this regard, it is well settled that when report of the
FSL has come then it is to be taken care of and there is no need
of providing the original copy of audio to the delinquent. There
is direct material against the petitioner that the delinquent
himself accepted his sound in the audio clip before the
S.D.P.O., Sadar, Bihar Sharif. Therefore, the finding of the
disciplinary authority that the delinquent is responsible as held
in the order of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority
and on the proving of charge there is no need of any interference
Patna High Court CWJC No.1925 of 2022 dt.20-02-2026
11/11
in this matter. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in
this matter.
7. So far as the punishment is concerned, the
punishment imposed upon the petitioner is of withholding of
two annual increments with cumulative effect and no payment
during the suspension period except the subsistence allowance.
This Court deems that such punishment is exorbitant in nature,
therefore, it is only being modified in the following terms:
“The petitioner shall be
subjected to the punishment of withholding
of two annual increments with non
cumulative effect and no payment during the
suspension period except the subsistence
allowance”
8. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition
is disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 20.01.2026
Uploading Date 20.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…