Patna High Court
316, Sipahi Brajesh Kumar Singh @ Braj Bhushan SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The Court set aside the termination orders and remitted the case to the disciplinary authority to re‑issue a show‑cause notice and conduct a fresh inquiry.
Summary
The petitioner, a constable, was terminated from service following a departmental inquiry into the alleged loss of 50 cartridges. He contended that the inquiry was conducted ex‑parte, that he was never served with a charge‑sheet or a second show‑cause notice, and that the disciplinary authority violated Rule 18(3) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005, thereby breaching natural justice. The State argued that notices were sent and the petitioner chose not to appear, and that the disciplinary process was duly followed. The Court found that the petitioner was indeed in custody during the alleged notice periods, that no copy of the charge‑sheet or enquiry report was served, and that the disciplinary authority acted without a valid show‑cause notice, rendering the termination orders illegal. Consequently, the Court set aside all termination orders and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to re‑issue a show‑cause notice and conduct a fresh inquiry within six months. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- The termination order is vitiated by the failure to serve a charge‑sheet and a second show‑cause notice as required by Rule 18(3) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005.
- Whether the departmental inquiry conducted ex‑parte violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the appellate and Director General of Police orders can be set aside on the ground of procedural irregularities.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement pending a fresh departmental inquiry.
Legislation cited
- Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 — s. Rule 18(3)
- Indian Penal Code
Subjects
- departmental inquiry
- ex parte proceedings
- natural justice
- show cause notice
- termination of service
- police disciplinary action
- procedural fairness
- reinstatement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23374 of 2019
======================================================
316, Sipahi Brajesh Kumar Singh @ Braj Bhushan Singh S/o Sri Sambhu
Prasad Singh R/o- Village and Post- Barail, P.S. and P.O. and District- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through D.G.P., Police, Patna, Bihar.
2. Director General of Police Patna, Bihar.
3. D.I.G., Sahabad Reigion, Dehri On Sone.
4. Superintendent of Police Buxar.
5. Deputy Superintendent of Police Buxar.
6. Krishna Kumar Inquiry Officer of the case cum The then Inspector,
Dumroan Circle P.S., Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kumar ( Gp4 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-05-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(I) To quash the order dated-13.12.2016 bearing Memo
no. 6541 passed by Director General of Police,
Patna, Bihar (Respondent No. 2), communicated to
the petitioner vide Memo No. - 931/442055 dated
24.05.2019 through which Memorial Petition filed
against order (Termination) dated- 14.05.2016,
contained in Memo No. - 882, in Appeal (D.O.) No.-
755/ 2016 passed by Respondent No.-3, has not been
accepted rather refused to expunge petitioner from
charges leveled against him and denied to reinstate
Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
2/14
him in service on wholly erroneous grounds, without
application of mind.
(II) To quash the order dated 14.05.2016, contained in
Memo No. - 882, passed by The Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Sahabad Range, Dehri-An-Sone,
Sasaram at Rohtas (Respondent No. 3) in Appeal
(D.O.) No.- 755/2016 where by Appeal filed by the
Appellant against order (Termination) dated
25.08.2015, contained in Memo No. - 2702, passed
by Respondent No.- 4, had dismissed the appeal and
affirmed order of respondent No. -4.
(III) To quash the order dated 25.08.2015, contained in
Memo No. 2702, issued under the signature of
Respondent No. - 4 relying upon D.O No.- 1090/15
against departmental proceeding No.- 17/ 2012
whereby service of the petitioner from the post of
Constable (Sipahi) has been terminated with
immediate effect in a very arbitrary and capricious
manner; in contravention of the basic and relevant
provisions of law.
(IV) To quash the report of departmental inquiry no.
17/2012 initiated against the petitioner; conducted
and submitted by one Krishna Kumar, Inspector P.S.
Dumroa, because the procedure adopted was ex-
parte and not as per the settled principles and in
violation of natural justice without giving any
opportunity to the Petitioner.
(V) That, it is further request to direct the Respondent
authorities to re-instead the Petitioner on his Post
and allow him to discharge his duty.
(VI) That, it is further requested to direct respondents to
make all relevant documents available to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
3/14
Appellant regarding this case, so that Petitioner can
defend his part more better then present.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition
are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable. At the
relevant time, he was posted at Buxar and was deployed as
Security Guard for E.V.M. On the complaint filed by one
Constable Kanahaiya Lal Paswan regarding missing of 50
cartridges, an enquiry was initiated by the Dy.S.P., Buxar on
28.02.2012. On the same day, vide Memo No. 481/12, he
submitted his report before the Superintendent of Police, Buxar. In
the enquiry report, it was stated that Constable Kanak Lal Mandal
and Vindhyachal Sah, who were present on duty, informed that
yesterday they came to join their duty, but did not assume charge,
since the petitioner had asked them to take charge of 5 rifle and
200 cartridges only. They submitted that 50 cartridges were not
made available to them. On enquiry, the petitioner informed that
after handing over the charge, he went to Buxar to meet the officer
in-charge of Nagar P.S. alongwith Kanak Lal Mandal. On the
directions of the authorities, the petitioner appeared before the
Dy.S.P. and it was disclosed that out of 5 guards, one Anil Kumar
was sick and was referred to P.M.C.H. from the second day after
Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
4/14
deployment at the post, Sanjay Kumar Singh was on leave since
15.02.2012, Kanhaiya Lal Paswan was mentally unstable and also
became sick on 24.02.2012 to 28.02.2012 and Rohit Kumar was
also sick from 24.02.2012 onwards and was not present even on
28.02.2012, during enquiry. It was informed by the petitioner that
Rohit Kumar is the In-charge of Guards and Command letter is in
his possession. In presence of the persons, guard register was
checked and it was found that 5 guards were posted. Constable
no.86 Kanak Lal Mandal and Constable no. 684 Vindhyachal Sah
took charge of 5 rifles and 200 round of cartridges from Constable
Rohit Kumar, but no one signed on the said charge assuming copy.
It was also mentioned in the guard register that the petitioner was
present and attentive on duty on 23.02.2012 and 24.02.2012. After
enquiry and upon the directions of the Superintendent of Police,
Buxar, who vide Memo No. 1038 dated 28.02.2012 directed for
institution of criminal case, criminal case bearing Town P.S. Case
No. 57 of 2012 was registered against the petitioner, constable
Kanhaiya Lal Paswan and the In-charge Rohit Kumar, under
different section of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, vide
Buxar District Order No. 258/12, the petitioner was put under
suspension, but, neither a copy of the suspension letter nor a copy
of the Memo of charge was supplied to the petitioner. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
5/14
petitioner was taken into custody and vide Letter No. 496 dated
02.03.2012, issued under the signature of the Superintendent of
Police, Buxar, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him
for the charges mentioned in the Memo of charge.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that any paper,
document, charge-sheet/Memo of charge was ever supplied to the
petitioner. The departmental proceeding was initiated and the
enquiry officer, after conducting the departmental proceeding
bearing No. 17 of 2012, submitted his report before the
Superintendent of Police, Buxar vide no. DR.594/13 dated
09.03.2013, whereby he found the petitioner to be guilty of the
charges levelled against him. It is the specific case of the petitioner
that during course of enquiry, neither any document was provided
to the petitioner nor any memo of charge was provided and even,
no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his show cause
reply, to the memo of charge and he did not even participate in the
departmental proceeding. The departmental proceeding was
conducted ex-parte and on the basis of the enquiry report dated
09.03.2013, vide letter no. 2702 dated 25.08.2015, issued under
the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Buxar, the services
of the petitioner was terminated. Being aggrieved with the order
passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner filed an appeal
Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
6/14
before the appellate authority. The appeal preferred by the
petitioner was also dismissed vide Memo no. 882 dated
14.05.2016, issued under the signature of the D.I.G., Sahabad
Range, Dehri on Sone. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred
Memorial before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
However, the Memorial preferred by the petitioner was also
rejected vide order dated 13.12.2016, passed by the Director
General of Police contained in Memo no. 6541. It is further case of
the petitioner that the petitioner had also preferred a writ petition
bearing C.W.J.C. No. 14208 of 2014, however the same was
disposed of vide order dated 13.08.2019 passed by a learned
Coordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to the authorities
concerned to take decision on the Memorial preferred by the
petitioner within 8 weeks and while considering/disposing of the
Memorial, the authority should consider the plea raised by the
petitioner regarding non-service of second show cause notice upon
the petitioner, in the background of the decision in the case of
Rohit Kumar, decided by learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
on 06.12.2016 in C.W.J.C. no. 10822 of 2015.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
during course of investigation in the criminal case on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
7/14
confessional statement made by Constable Rohit Kumar, missing
50 cartridges along with one Bindolia was recovered by the police
from the shop of one Barber. The petitioner was also put behind
bars in the said criminal case and he was subsequently released on
bail on the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
03.07.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16245 of 2012.
He submits that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted
ex-parte without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to
participate in the departmental enquiry. He submits that before
initiating the departmental proceeding no opportunity was given to
the petitioner to file show cause reply and the memo of charge was
never supplied to the petitioner. Even during course of
departmental proceeding, the petitioner was not given any
opportunity to participate, since during departmental proceeding,
he was in jail. He further submits that since the petitioner did not
participate in the departmental proceeding and the departmental
proceeding was conducted ex-parte, there is no question of cross-
examination of any witness on behalf of the petitioner and the
order passed by the disciplinary authority is in complete violation
of the provisions contained in the Bihar C.C.A Rules, 2005.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that prior to passing the impugned order of punishment, no second
Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
8/14
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the disciplinary
authority only on the basis of the enquiry report, proceeded to pass
the impugned order of the punishment, whereby the petitioner has
been terminated from service. He further submits that constable
Rohit Kumar, against whom the allegation of not taking care of the
50 cartridges were there and on his confessional statement, the
cartridges were recovered, had also filed a writ petition bearing
C.W.J.C. No. 10822 of 2015. The said writ petition was allowed
vide order 06.12.2016 passed by a learned Coordinate Bench of
this Court, on the ground that no copy of the enquiry report was
forwarded to the said Rohit Kumar, which is in violation of Rule
18(3) of Bihar C.C.A. Rule, 2005 and the order of punishment was
not preceeded with the service of show cause on the enquiry
report, therefore, the writ petition was allowed and the matter was
remitted back to the Superintendent of Police, Buxar to proceed
with the matter afresh, in accrodance with law and in observance
that the statutory rules, from the stage of service of copy of
enquiry report. He submits that the case of the petitioner is
squarely covered by the judgment of the learned Coordinate Bench
of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. no. 10822 of 2015.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
9/14
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State submits that despite repeated opportunities being given to
the petitioner to participate in the departmental proceeding, which
would appear from the enquiry report, wherein the enquiry officer
has specifically mentioned about sending notices/information to
the petitioner through post on his home address as also through the
Dumraon Circle, the petitioner chose not to appear in the enquiry
proceeding and left with no other option, the enquiry officer
proceeded to conduct the departmental enquiry ex-parte.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
further submits that before initiation of the departmental enquiry,
all the procedures, as prescribed under law was followed and the
disciplinary authority after going through the reports submitted by
the enquiry officer, proceeded to pass the order of termination
against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was found to
be negligent in his duty and he did not take care of the 50
cartridges, which were in his position and for which, a First
Information Report was also lodged against the petitioner and
other similarly situated constables. He submits that there is no
infirmity in conducting the departmental proceeding and every
effort was taken by the disciplinary authority to consider the
enquiry report and then, after consideration the impugned order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
10/14
termination was passed. He submits that even the appellate
authority, who passed the order on the appeal preferred by the
petitioner, proceeded to reject the appeal after thorough
consideration of all the defense raised by the petitioner. He
submits that the Memorial preferred by the petitioner was rejected
by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, after going
through the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the
appellate authority, as well as after the appreciation of the enquiry
report and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Director
General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
further submits that a show cause reply was filed on behalf of the
petitioner, which was received on 4/6.02.2014, and therefore, it
cannot be said that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to
file his defense.
CONSIDERATION
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the records, it appears that a First Information
Report was lodged against the petitioner, wherein he was in
custody from 28.02.2012 to 03.07.2012. The memo of charge was
issued on 02.03.2012 i.e. after the petitioner was taken into
custody and a specific averment has been made in paragraph no. 9
Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
11/14
of the writ petition to the effect with the memo of charge was not
served upon the petitioner and neither an opportunity was given to
the petitioner to submit his clarification, which has not been
denied by the respondent authorities, while filing counter affidavit
and only a statement has been made that the same is matter of
record. It further appears that during course of departmental
enquiry, notices were issued to the petitioner on different dates, but
admittedly, the petitioner was in custody, however after his release
from the custody 2 or 3 notices were issued to the petitioner.
However, it is the specific of the case of the petitioner that the said
notices were never received by him and no denial is there in the
counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent authorities. It
further appears that the enquiry report was submitted by the
enquiry officer, before the disciplinary authority and from the
order impugned contained in Memo no. 2702 dated 25.08.2015 by
the disciplinary authority, it would transpire that no second show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner or any enquiry report was
ever served upon the petitioner. The disciplinary authority in
complete violation of the provisions contained in Rule 18(3) of the
Bihar C.C.A Rules, 2005, without providing the enquiry report to
the petitioner or without giving any opportunity to the petitioner,
proceeded to pass the order of punishment against the petitioner,
Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
12/14
whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Further,
since admittedly no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file
his second show cause reply, there is no question of consideration
of his reply by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by
the disciplinary authority is based on the basis of the enquiry
report submitted by the enquiry officer, wherein admittedly, the
petitioner was not present. Even the appellate authority, without
considering the defense raised by the petitioner in his memo of
appeal, proceeded to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner,
mechanically. The Director General of Police, while considering
the Memorial preferred by the petitioner, did not even consider the
fact that the writ petition of similarly situated person was allowed
by a learned Co-ordinate Bench this Hon’ble Court, by directing
the Director General of Police to consider this aspect while passing
the final order on the memorial, but even then he did not consider
the same and proceeded to reject the memorial preferred by the
petitioner. It has been informed by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner that Rohit Kumar, whose writ petition
was allowed by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 06.12.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. no. 10822 of 2015, has
been reinstated in service and is working in the Police Department.
Further, pursuant to the order dated 13.08.2019 passed in C.W.J.C.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
13/14
no. 14208 of 2014 preferred by the petitioner, an information was
given to the learned counsel for the petitioner vide Memo no.
931/442055 dated 24.09.2019 that the memorial preferred by the
petitioner has already been rejected on 14.12.2016 by the Director
General of Police and the case of Rohit Kumar cannot be taken
parity with the case of the petitioner, therefore, again the same was
rejected.
11. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion
that the order impugned passed by the Superintendent of Police
contained in Memo no. 2702 dated 25.08.2015, Memo no. 882
dated 14.05.2016 passed by the D.I.G. Shahbad Range, Dehri-on-
Sone, the order contained in Memo no. 6541 dated 13.12.2016
passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna and Memo
no. 931/442055 dated 24.09.2019 issued under the signature of the
A.I.G. (inspection), Government of Bihar, Patna, office of the
Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna deserves to be set aside
and are accordingly set aside.
12. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary
authority to proceed afresh from the defective stage i.e. from the
issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner. The entire exercise
must be completed within a period of six months.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
14/14
13. The writ petition is allowed in the above mentioned
terms.
14. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
Ajay/Pallavi/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.05.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.