Mahesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1966 of 2022
     ======================================================
     Mahesh Kumar S/o Mahendra Prasad Sah Resident of Village- Khutia, P.S.-
     Mansi, District- Khagaria.

                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2.   D.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3.   I.G., Purnia Range, Purnia.
4.   S.P., Katihar.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Advocate
                                     Ms.Shruti Sinha, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :        Mr. Md. N.H. Khan (SC1)
                                     Md. Harun Quareshi, AC to SC1
     ======================================================
     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 Memo No. 221/Ra.Ka., dated 21.01.2014, issued by

      the Superintendent of Police, Katihar, whereby the petitioner,

      who was then working as a Sub-Inspector of Police, was

      inflicted with the punishment of one black mark equivalent to

      forfeiture of six months’ increment (Annexure-3 to the writ

      petition). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing Memo No.

      1201/Sha.Pra., dated 24.09.2021, issued by the Inspector
Patna High Court CWJC No.1966 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
                                           2/10




         General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea, by which the appeal

         preferred by the petitioner was rejected (Annexure-6 to the writ

         petition). Further prayer has been made for grant of all

         consequential benefits and for passing any other order or orders

         which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the

         facts and circumstances of the case.

                     3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

         petitioner belongs to the 2009 batch of Sub-Inspector of Police

         and, while he was posted in Katihar district, a departmental

         charge was levelled against him alleging that when he was

         deputed at Saimapur O.P., on 05.07.2013 and 06.07.2013, the

         Officer-in-Charge         of    the      said   outpost   informed   the

         Superintendent of Police, Katihar through wireless that the

         petitioner, after reporting himself sick on 05.07.2013, had left

         the outpost, as a result of which no officer was available at the

         outpost. It was further alleged that the petitioner had prior

         knowledge that the Gram Panchayat Election, 2013, in Katihar

         district was scheduled to be held on 07.07.2013, and, therefore,

         action was sought to be taken against him on the charges of

         indiscipline, dereliction of duty, and being unfit for police

         service.

                     4. Learned counsel further submits that on the basis of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1966 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
                                           3/10




         the said allegations, a departmental enquiry was initiated against

         the petitioner under Rule 828(c), vide Enquiry No. 2/13. The

         Enquiry Officer, after conducting a full-fledged departmental

         proceeding, submitted his report holding that the charges

         levelled     against     the    petitioner   were   not   proved,   and

         consequently found him not guilty.

                     5. It is further submitted that the Superintendent of

         Police, Katihar, while differing with the findings of the Enquiry

         Officer, passed the order of punishment of one black mark

         equivalent to forfeiture of six months’ increment against the

         petitioner vide Memo No. 221/Ra.Ka., dated 21.01.2014,

         without assigning any reasons for such disagreement and

         without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

         Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the

         Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea, which was

         rejected vide Memo No. 1201/Sha.Pra., dated 24.09.2021.

         Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

                     6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two

         principal       contentions        before    this   Hon’ble     Court.

         Firstly, it has been contended that the Superintendent of Police

         is not the competent disciplinary authority in respect of a Sub-

         Inspector of Police. Secondly, it has been submitted that for
Patna High Court CWJC No.1966 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
                                           4/10




         adjudication of the disciplinary proceeding, the provisions of the

         Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal)

         Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the CCA Rules, 2005”)

         are applicable, but violation of Rule 18(3) has been made, i.e.

         2nd show cause not issued. Hence, the punishment order is

         illegal.

                     7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

         reliance upon the judgment dated 19.01.2023 passed by a Co-

         ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 4643 of 2016 (Vijay

         Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), wherein it was

         held that the petitioner therein was holding the rank of Sub-

         Inspector and that the disciplinary authority in his case was the

         Deputy Inspector General of Police / Inspector General of

         Police, and, therefore, the charge-memo ought to have been

         issued by the said authority. However, in that case, the charge-

         memo had been issued by the Superintendent of Police. Learned

         counsel submits that in view of the ratio laid down in the

         aforesaid judgment, the charge-memo and the consequential

         action taken against the present petitioner are liable to be set

         aside.

                     8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

         that while passing the impugned order, there has been a gross
Patna High Court CWJC No.1966 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
                                           5/10




         violation of Rules 18(2) and 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005.

         According to him, where the disciplinary authority disagrees

         with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on any article of charge,

         it is mandatory for the disciplinary authority to record reasons

         for such disagreement and to give the delinquent employee an

         opportunity to respond before recording its own findings, if the

         evidence on record is considered sufficient for the purpose.

                      9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State

         submits that the impugned orders are sustainable in the eyes of

         law. It is contended that members of the police force are

         primarily governed by the Bihar Police Manual, and although

         the CCA Rules, 2005 are applicable, the disciplinary

         proceedings are to be conducted in harmony with the provisions

         of the Bihar Police Manual. He further submits that Appendix-

         84 of the Bihar Police Manual Volume 3, read with Rule 825

         Volume 1, clearly lays down the competent authorities for

         awarding major and minor punishments. According to him, the

         Superintendent of Police is the competent authority in respect of

         an Assistant Sub Inspector/ Sub-Inspector of Police for passing

         orders relating to suspension as well as major and minor

         punishments, except compulsory retirement, removal, or

         dismissal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1966 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
                                           6/10




                     10. Learned counsel for the State further submits that

         the disciplinary authority is legally empowered to differ from

         the findings of the Enquiry Officer, provided reasons are

         assigned for such disagreement. In the present case, reasons

         have been recorded in the impugned order itself, and thereafter

         the punishment has been imposed. Hence, according to him, the

         writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

                     11. Upon hearing the parties and perusing the records,

         this Court finds that two issues arise for consideration:

                     (i) Whether the Superintendent of Police is competent

         to pass the final order of punishment in respect of a Sub-

         Inspector of Police; and

                     (ii) Whether the impugned order suffers from

         violation of Rule 18(2) of the CCA Rules, 2005.

                     12. For adjudication of the first issue, it is necessary

         to examine the statutory framework governing disciplinary

         proceedings against police personnel. The Bihar Police Manual

         is the primary and governing law for police officials and staffs.

         Chapter-25 (Rules 824 to 854) deals comprehensively with

         departmental proceedings. Corresponding to Rules 824 and 829

         of Bihar Police Manual Volume-1, Appendix-84, as explained in

         Volume-III of the Bihar Police Manual, prescribes a tabular
Patna High Court CWJC No.1966 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
                                           7/10




         chart indicating the competent authorities empowered to impose

         various punishments. The said tabular chart is extracted as under

         :-




                     12.1 Upon perusal of the said tabular chart clearly

         indicates that the Superintendent of Police is competent to pas

         order upon A.S.I./S.I. in cases of suspension, reduction in rank,

         other major punishments, and minor punishments, except

         compulsory retirement, removal, or dismissal.

                     13. The applicability of the CCA Rules, 2005 has also

         been recognised under Rule 824-A of the Bihar Police Manual,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1966 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
                                           8/10




         read with Rule 32 of the CCA Rules, 2005. So far as the

         judgment in Vijay Kumar Singh (supra) is concerned, this Court

         finds that the relevant provisions of the Bihar Police Manual,

         particularly Appendix-84 of Volume-3, were not placed for

         consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench, nor was the said

         aspect examined. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view

         that the said judgment was rendered per incuriam and is not

         applicable to the facts of the present case.

                     13.1 Accordingly, the first issue is answered by

         holding that the Superintendent of Police is competent to pass

         orders in respect of A.S.I./S.I. for suspension, reduction in rank,

         other major punishments, and minor punishments, except

         compulsory retirement, removal, or dismissal.

                     14. The second issue relates to the procedure adopted

         by the disciplinary authority while differing from the findings of

         the Enquiry Officer. Rule 18(2) and Rule 18(3) of the CCA

         Rules, 2005, as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner,

         mandate that where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the

         findings of the Enquiry Officer, it must record reasons for such

         disagreement and afford an opportunity to the delinquent

         employee to represent against the proposed findings. Rule 1892)

         and Rule 18(3) of the said rule read as under :-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1966 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
                                           9/10




                                    “18(2) The disciplinary authority, after
                         receipt of the enquiry report as per Rule 17 (23)(ii)
                         or as per sub-rule (1), shall, if it disagrees with the
                         findings of the inquiring authority on any article of
                         charge, record its reasons for such disagreement
                         and record its own finding on such charge, if the
                         evidences on record is sufficient for the purpose.
                                   (3) The disciplinary authority shall
                         forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the
                         inquiry report, together with its own findings, if
                         any, as provided in sub-rule (2), to the government
                         servant who may submit, if he or she so desires, his
                         or her written representation or submission to the
                         disciplinary authority within fifteen days.”



                     15. From a conjoint reading of Rules 17(23), 18(2),

         and 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005, it is evident that the

         disciplinary authority is empowered to record its own findings

         after assigning reasons for disagreement. In the present case,

         this Court finds that the Superintendent of Police has indeed

         assigned reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the

         Enquiry Officer, and the same appear to be acceptable.

                     16. However, this Court also finds that no second

         show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before imposition

         of punishment. The non-issuance of a second show-cause notice

         amounts to violation of the mandatory procedural requirement

         and principles of natural justice. On this limited ground alone,

         the disciplinary proceeding stands vitiated.
             Patna High Court CWJC No.1966 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
                                                       10/10




                                  17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order

                      dated 21.01.2014, contained in Memo No. 221/Ra.Ka., issued

                      by the Superintendent of Police, Katihar (Annexure-3), and the

                      order dated 24.09.2021, contained in Memo No. 1201/Sha.Pra.,

                      issued by the Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea

                      (Annexure-6), are hereby set aside.

                                  18. However, liberty is granted to the disciplinary

                      authority to proceed afresh from the stage of issuance of second

                      show-cause notice, afford due opportunity of hearing to the

                      petitioner, and thereafter pass a reasoned final order in

                      accordance with law.

                                  19. All such exercise shall be completed within a

                      period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt/production of a

                      copy of this order.

                                  20. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the

                      present writ petition stands disposed of.



                                                  (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          27/01/2026
Transmission Date       NA