Patna High Court
Amritosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The disciplinary and appellate orders are set aside as the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, and the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority for a fresh enquiry.
Summary
The petitioner, a principal‑in‑charge of an Industrial Training Institute, was deputed as Centre Superintendent for an All India Trade Examination. A surprise inspection by a flying squad found irregularities, and the petitioner was issued a show‑cause notice but was not provided the squad’s report despite repeated requests, including a RTI application. He replied to the charges, yet the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of withholding three increments without considering his defence. The petitioner appealed, but the appellate authority rejected the appeal without having supplied the report, which was only furnished after the appeal was filed. The High Court held that the non‑disclosure of the crucial report denied the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, violating principles of natural justice, and therefore set aside both the punishment order and the appellate order, remitting the matter for a fresh enquiry. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure to provide the flying‑squad report to the petitioner violated the principles of natural justice in a departmental enquiry.
- Whether the punishment order and its affirmation on appeal are liable to be set aside for procedural irregularities.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the disciplinary and appellate orders and have the matter remitted for a fresh enquiry.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- departmental enquiry
- natural justice
- Right to Information Act
- punishment
- increments
- procedural fairness
- quashing order
- departmental proceedings
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21167 of 2021
======================================================
Amritosh Kumar S/o Sita Ram Resident of Village- Chainpur, P.S.- Kurhani,
District- Muzaffarpur, At present working as Principal in-charge, Industrial
Training Institute, Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Labour Resources, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Employment and Training, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Labour Resources Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subhash Kumar Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar (GP24 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 02-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing the resolution contained in Memo No. 2303 dated
26.09.2019 by which the petitioner was awarded minor
punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative
effect. Further prayer is for quashing Memo No. 992 dated
02.07.2020, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has
been rejected.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
2/15
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ
petition are, that while the petitioner was working as In-charge
Principal at Industrial Training Institute, Simari Bakhtiyarpur,
he was deputed as Centre Superintendent at Industrial Training
Institute, Saharsa, vide letter no. 670 dated 21.07.2018. Since
the letter dated 21.07.2018, was sent through email to the
petitioner, therefore he reached the Industrial Training Institute,
Saharsa on 22.07.2018 and took charge of the centre as Centre
Superintendent, for conducting All India Trade Examination
2018, which was scheduled to be held from 24.07.2018.
Pursuant to the requisition made by the petitioner, the District
Education Officer, Saharsa, vide office order contained in memo
no.681 dated 23.07.2018 deputed some teachers as invigilators
for conducting examination. The invigilators were required to
give their joining at the examination centre at 8. A.M. on
24.07.2018. However, it is the case of the petitioner that all the
teachers gave their joining at the centre at about 9 A.M. All of a
sudden, an explanation was asked for by the petitioner vide
letter no. 703 dated 24.07.2018. In compliance thereof the
petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.07.2018, wherein he
denied all allegations leveled against him. It is the case of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
3/15
petitioner that although vide letter dated 24.07.2018, an
explanation was sought for from the petitioner, however the
report i.e. the report prepared by the flying squad, on the basis
of which the petitioner was issued show cause, was never
provided to the petitioner. Subsequently vide memo no. 585
dated 08.03.2019 issued under the signature of the Deputy
Secretary, Department of Labour Resource, Government of
Bihar, Patna, a decision was taken to initiate departmental
proceeding against him and the memo of charge was also issued
along with the said letter. Since the report of the flying squad
was not provided to the petitioner, the petitioner filed an
application under the Right to Information Act to obtain the said
report. When the said report of the flying squad was not
provided to the petitioner, then the petitioner was constrained to
file his reply before the Deputy Secretary, Department of
Labour, Government of Bihar, Patna, vide his letter no. 409
dated 25.03.2019, wherein the petitioner gave his reply with
regard to each and every charge leveled against him and
requested the authorities concerned to exonerate him from the
charges, which were leveled against him.
4. The disciplinary authority, without considering the
defence taken by the petitioner in his show cause reply,
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
4/15
proceeded to pass the impugned order of punishment contained
in memo no. 2303 dated 26.09.2019. The petitioner was
inflicted with a punishment of stoppage of three increments with
non-cumulative effect. Being aggrieved with and dissatisfied
with the order of punishment dated 26.09.2019, the petitioner
preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority i.e.
Principal Secretary, Department of Labour Resources,
Government of Bihar, Patna on 30.10.2019. It is further case of
the petitioner that after filing of the memo of appeal, the
petitioner was provided with the document i.e. the report of the
flying squad vide letter no. 1332 dated 27.12.2019 issued under
the signature of Assistant Director (Examination), Office of the
Examination Controller, Labour Resources Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna. In the meanwhile, the appeal
preferred by the petitioner was heard and rejected by the Deputy
Secretary to the Government, Patna vide his memo no. dated
992 dated 02.07.2020.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Centre
Superintendent on 22.07.2018 and took charge of the said centre
on 24.07.2018. He submits that the examination started on 9.30
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
5/15
A.M. and immediately thereafter at 9.45 A.M., the flying squad
team visited the school and conducted an inspection. The team
found some discrepancies in conduct of the examination i.e.
some of the students were found sitting without any sitting
arrangement. He submits that when the same was pointed out to
the petitioner, immediately the petitioner directed the
invigilators to get the students seated according to the seat plan
and also scolded the invigilator. He submits that it was not
practicably feasible for the petitioner to verify sitting
arrangement of each and every candidate and further the seat
plan was already affixed at the main gate of centre as well as
outside each and every room of the examination centre. He
further submits that even two students were expelled for
indulging in unfair means.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that being the Centre Superintendent, it was not within
the domain of the petitioner to interfere in the marks awarded in
the practical examination by the external. Since, the same is
supposed to be kept confidential as per the procedure of the
examination. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that even the videography of the centre was being done
and the authorities concerned did not bothered to look at the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
6/15
video footage during course of enquiry to suggest that the
petitioner was not at fault.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State submits that while the petitioner was working as In-
charge Principal at Industrial Training Institute, Saharsa, he was
appointed as the Centre Superintendent for conducting All India
Trade Examination-2018, fairly, in terms of the rule and
guidelines. During the said examination, a team of flying squad
conducted surprise visit at the centre in question and they found
certain irregularities at the centre viz-a-viz that the trainees were
not sitting in examination hall in terms of the seat plan and were
also found using unfair means, for which two candidates were
expelled. The identity cards were not issued to the invigilators,
for which the Centre Superintendent i.e. the petitioner herein,
did not give any satisfactory reply. He submits that a decision
was taken to initiate departmental proceeding against the
petitioner, for which memo of charge was issued to him on
08.03.2019 with a direction to submit his reply within 15 days.
The reply was submitted by the petitioner on 25.03.2019 and
after considering his reply, the disciplinary authority proceeded
to award minor punishment of withholding of three increments
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
7/15
with non-cumulative effect. The petitioner being aggrieved with
the order of punishment dated 26.09.2019, preferred appeal
before the appellate authority. The appeal preferred by the
petitioner was duly considered by the appellate authority and by
a reasoned order the appellate authority proceeded to reject the
appeal preferred by the petitioner on 02.07.2020. He submits
that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to place
on record his defence and the principle of natural justice was
followed, before inflicting punishment to the petitioner. He
submits that even the petitioner in his show cause reply has
accepted that there was deficiency on his part, in as much as that
he admitted that it was not possible for him to visit the centre
and it was the duty of the invigilator to see that whether
candidates are sitting as per their allotted seats or not.
CONSIDERATION
8. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that the petitioner was
transferred from Industrial Training Institute, Saharsa on
21.07.2018 and immediately thereafter he gave his joining on
22.07.2018. On 24.07.2018, the examination for All India Trade
Examination-2018 was scheduled at the centre in question. The
examination was scheduled to start from 9:30 AM and the team
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
8/15
of the flying squad reached there at 9.45 A.M. The flying squad
team found certain irregularities at the centre in question, vis-a-
vis that some of the candidates were sitting without any sitting
plan. The invigilators were not issued the identity cards and two
students were found to be using malpractices/unfair means,
accordingly, they were expelled. It appears that a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.07.2018, wherein the
deficiencies pointed out by the flying squad team was pointed
out to the petitioner and pursuant thereto the petitioner filed his
reply on 26.07.2018, wherein he informed about the deficiencies
which were pointed out by the flying squad team.
9. It further appears that vide letter dated 08.03.2019,
memo of charge was issue to the petitioner and he was directed
to gave his reply to the charges leveled against him. The
petitioner asked for the report submitted by the flying squad so
that he can give his reply in detail, however the same was not
provided to the petitioner. In absence thereof, the petitioner filed
his reply before the authority concerned i.e. Deputy Secretary,
Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
Subsequently vide letter no. 1238 dated 30.05.2019 issued under
the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Labour Resources
Department,Government of Bihar, Patna, second show cause
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
9/15
notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his
reply on 24.06.2019, wherein he gave details of his innocence.
The petitioner requested the disciplinary authority to exonerate
him from the charges leveled against him. Finally vide order
contained in memo no. 2303 dated 26.09.2019 passed by the
Deputy Secretary, Department of Labour Resources,
Government of Bihar, Patna, the petitioner was inflicted with a
punishment of stoppage of three increments with non-
cumulative effect. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner
preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority,
however the same was treated to be review petition and the
Deputy Secretary to the Government, Labour Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna vide his order
contained in memo no. 992 dated 02.07.2020 proceeded to
rejected the appeal/review preferred by the petitioner. It appears
from the record that the document which was the basis for
initiation of proceeding against the petitioner i.e. the report of
the flying squad was not provided to the petitioner, despite
repeated request being made by him and even by filing petition
under the Right to Informant Act. The same was finally
provided to the petitioner on 27.12.2019 i.e. after filing of the
appeal/review petition by the petitioner on 30.10.2019. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
10/15
disciplinary authority proceeded to award punishment to the
petitioner on the basis of the report submitted by the flying
squad and the same was not provided to the petitioner during
course of enquiry or before passing the order by the disciplinary
authority.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case of
(State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha),
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772, in paragraph nos. 34, 35, 36 & 37
has held as follows:
“34. We are of the considered opinion
that the aforesaid observations are fully
applicable in the facts and circumstances
of this case. Non-disclosure of documents
having a potential to cause prejudice to a
government servant in the enquiry
proceedings would clearly be denial of a
reasonable opportunity to submit a
plausible and effective rebuttal to the
charges being enquired into against the
government servant.
35. The aforesaid proposition of law has
been reiterated in the case of Trilok Nath
vs. Union of India 1967 SLR 759 (SC)
wherein it was held that non-supply of the
documents amounted to denial of
reasonable opportunity. It was held as
follows: "Had he decided to do so, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
11/15
document would have been useful to the
appellant for cross-examining the
witnesses who deposed against him.
Again had the copies of the documents
been furnished to the appellant he might,
after perusing them, have exercised his
right under the rule and asked for an oral
inquiry to be held. Therefore, in our view
the failure of the Inquiry Officer to
furnish the appellant with copies of the
documents such as the FIR and the
statements recorded at Shidipura house
and during the investigation must be held
to have caused prejudice to the appellant
in making his defence at the inquiry."
36. The proposition of law that a
government employee facing a
department enquiry is entitled to all the
relevant statement, documents and other
materials to enable him to have a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself
in the department enquiry against the
charges is too well established to need
any further reiteration. Nevertheless
given the facts of this case we may re-
emphasise the law as stated by this Court
in the case of State of Punjab vs. Bhagat
Ram (1975) 1 SCC 155: "The State
contended that the respondent was not
entitled to get copies of statements. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
12/15
reasoning of the State was that the
respondent was given the opportunity
witnesses and during the cross-
examination the respondent would have
the opportunity of confronting the
witnesses with the statements. It is
contended that the synopsis was adequate
to acquaint the respondent with the gist of
the evidence. The meaning of a
reasonable opportunity of showing cause
against the action proposed to be taken is
that the government servant is afforded a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself
against the charges on which inquiry is
held. The government servant should be
given an opportunity to deny his guilt and
establish his innocence. He can do so
when he is told what the charges against
him are. He can do so by cross-examining
the witnesses produced against him. The
object of supplying statements is that the
government servant will be able to refer
to the previous statements of the
witnesses proposed to be examined
against the government servant. Unless
the statements are given to the
government servant he will not be able to
have an effective and useful cross-
examination. It is unjust and unfair to
deny the government servant copies of
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
13/15
statements of witnesses examined during
investigation and produced at the inquiry
in support of the charges leveled against
the government servant. A synopsis does
not satisfy the requirements of giving the
government servant a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against the
action proposed to be taken."
37. We may also notice here that the
counsel for the appellant sought to argue
that respondent had even failed to give
reply to the show cause notice, issued
under Rule 9. The removal order,
according to him, was therefore justified.
We are unable to accept the aforesaid
submission. The first enquiry report dated
3.8.2001, is clearly vitiated, for the
reasons stated earlier. The second
enquiry report can not legally be termed
as an enquiry report as it is a reiteration
of the earlier, enquiry report. Asking the
respondent to give reply to the enquiry
report without supply of the documents is
to add insult to injury. In our opinion the
appellants have deliberately
misconstrued the directions issued by the
High Court in Writ Petition 937/2003. In
terms of the aforesaid order the
respondents was required to submit a
reply to the charge sheet upon supply of
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
14/15
the necessary document by the appellant.
It is for this reason that the High Court
subsequently while passing an interim
order on 7.6.2004 in Writ Petition No.
793/2004 directed the appellant to ensure
compliance of the order passed by the
Division Bench on 23.7.2003. In our
opinion the actions of the enquiry officers
in preparing the reports ex-parte without
supplying the relevant documents has
resulted in miscarriage of justice to the
respondent. The conclusion is irresistible
that the respondent has been denied a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself
in the enquiry proceedings.”
11. Considering the settled law as well as the fact that
the report, which was the basis for initiation of enquiry against
the petitioner was not provided to the petitioner by the
disciplinary authority, before passing the final order of
punishment, which denied the petitioner an opportunity to file
his reply to the allegations leveled against him, since the basis
of initiation of departmental proceeding was the report of the
flying squad team, which found certain
discrepancies/deficiencies at the centre, where the petitioner was
appointed as the Centre Superintendent. In view of the above,
this Court is of the opinion that the order contained in memo no.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21167 of 2021(5) dt.02-07-2026
15/15
2303 dated 26.09.2019 as well as memo no. 992 dated
02.07.2020 both issued under the signature of the Deputy
Secretary to the Government, Department of Labour Resources,
Government of Bihar, Patna deserves to be set aside and is
accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the defective stage
i.e. by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply on
the basis of the documents, which were the basis for initiation of
departmental proceeding against the petitioner and which have
been provided to the petitioner on 27.12.2019. The entire
exercise in this regard must be completed within a period of six
months from the date of receipts/production of a copy of the
order.
12. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is
allowed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
shital/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.