Patna High Court
Satish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The High Court set aside the punishment order and directed restoration of the petitioner’s pay, increments and salary for the suspension period, holding that the departmental proceeding was violative of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 and was based on no evidence.
Summary
The petition filed by Satish Kumar, an Executive Engineer, challenged the departmental punishment of permanent reduction of three pay stages, denial of future increments and loss of salary during suspension imposed by the Bihar Water Resources Department. He alleged that the departmental enquiry violated the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 by not providing a show‑cause notice, charge sheet, list of witnesses or documents, and by denying him the opportunity to cross‑examine witnesses, thereby breaching natural justice. The enquiry officer also acted as the presenting officer and relied on no substantive evidence, leading to findings of guilt on several charges. The High Court examined the procedural deficiencies, the lack of evidence, and the findings of the enquiry, and held that the punishment order was illegal and perverse. Consequently, the court set aside the punishment orders, restored the petitioner’s pay scale, increments and salary for the suspension period, and dismissed the departmental orders. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental enquiry complied with the procedural requirements of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005, including issuance of a proper show‑cause notice, charge sheet, list of witnesses and documents.
- Whether the enquiry officer’s conduct, acting as presenting officer and failing to produce evidence, violated principles of natural justice and the burden of proof.
- Whether the punishment of permanent pay reduction and denial of increments was legally valid in view of the procedural irregularities.
- Whether the High Court can intervene under Articles 226/227 to set aside a departmental order that is based on no evidence.
Subjects
- departmental enquiry
- natural justice
- Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005
- pay reduction
- suspension
- burden of proof
- Article 226
- procedural irregularities
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2726 of 2022
======================================================
Satish Kumar S/o Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, Resident of J-89 P.C. Colony,
Kankarbagh, P.S. - Kankarbagh, District – Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar.
4. The Engineer in Chief, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Chief Engineer, Flood Control and Water Drainage, Water Resources
Department, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Superintending Engineer, Flood Control Planning and Monitoring
Circle, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.
7. Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sourav Suman, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, AC to GA-2
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
: Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Prabhakar Pahepuri, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 25-03-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
setting aside the order dated 25.06.2019, wherein the petitioner
has been inflicted with the punishment of permanent reduction
to three pay stage in time scale of pay and further it has been
directed that the petitioner shall not be paid any increments in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
2/36
future. Further prayer is for quashing the order dated
21.07.2020 passed by the respondent authorities, where-under
the appeal was rejected without considering the facts which is
bad in law and is arbitrary, illegal, perverse and opposed to law
and therefore, the same ought to be struck down. Further prayer
in the writ petition is for quashing the enquiry report issued
vide Inquiry Officer’s letter no. 98 dated 22.05.2018 wherein
charge nos.1 & 7 have been found to be proved and the charge
nos. 2, 4 & 6 have been found to be partially proved against the
petitioner without considering the reply filed by the petitioner
and the documents available on record. Further prayer in the
writ petition is for payment of all consequential benefits to the
petitioner due to the order passed in the departmental
proceeding as contained in Memo No. 1258 dated 25.06.2019
and Memo No. 1608 dated 14.09.2017. Further prayer in the
writ petition is for commanding the respondent authorities to
pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner, including
arrears of salary after taking into consideration all the
promotions, increments and pay revisions applicable to the
petitioner along with interest thereupon.
3. Vide order dated 24.09.2024, additional prayers
have been incorporated pursuant to the relief sought for in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
3/36
Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2024, which are as follows:-
“For quashing of the entire departmental
proceeding initiated against the petitioner, as none of the
statutory and mandatory procedures were followed and the
departmental proceeding was initiated and proceeded as against
the petitioner and punishment order was issued as against the
petitioner, no any show cause was ever asked from the
petitioner prior to initiation of Prapatra ‘KA’ (memo of charge)
as against the petitioner and moreover, along with memo of
charge no any list of witnesses were annexed. Further prayer is
for holding the entire departmental proceeding conducted
against the petitioner is bad in law and for quashing the entire
departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner for the
vague charges for which he is not at all responsible as he has
followed the instructions and directions/orders of his senior
authorities and being biased as against the petitioner with
ulterior motive, no any witness were examined or cross
examined. Further prayer in the writ petition is for quashing
the second show cause notice as contained in letter No. 1197
dated 29.05.2018, as the enquiry was not conducted by the
enquiry officer in accordance with law, since no any witnesses
were examined or cross examined and moreover the second
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
4/36
show cause notice does not contain any proposal of punishment
as against the petitioner, the petitioner was never confronted
with the proposed punishment as against him, which is in
violation of principles of natural justice. Further prayer is for
grant of permission to implead the Secretary Bihar Public
Service Commission as respondent no.7 in the writ application.
Further prayer in the writ petition is for quashing of notification
as contained in Memo No. 1360 dated 08.06.2022 issued under
the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government
whereby and whereunder it has erroneously been ordered that
except subsistence allowance for the period of suspension i.e.
from 14.09.2017 to 24.09.2018, nothing will be paid. For
prayer in the writ petition is for commanding the respondent
authorities to pay entire amount of salary and allowances for
the period under which the petitioner was put under
suspension.”
4. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ
petition are that the petitioner was posted as Executive
Engineer in the Bagmati Division, Runnisaidpur vide
departmental notification contained in Memo No. 2027 dated
23.06.2017. Certain allegations were levelled against the
petitioner and he was put under suspension, in contemplation of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
5/36
departmental proceeding. The petitioner was put under
suspension vide Memo No. 1608 dated 14.09.2017 issued
under the signature of the Joint Secretary to the Government,
Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, for
the alleged act of negligence and in not performing his duties
on 14.08.2017, due to which the left embankment of River
Bagmati was breached, which resulted in damage/loss of life. A
decision was taken to initiate departmental proceeding against
the petitioner, for his alleged act of negligence and dereliction
of duty. Accordingly, vide Memo No. 1691 dated 20.09.2017
issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna a decision
was taken to initiate departmental proceeding against the
petitioner and the enquiry officer as well as the presenting
officer were appointed and it was directed that the petitioner
will submit his show cause, with the permission of the enquiry
officer and to appear before him in person. Memo of charge
was also provided to the petitioner along with the letter dated
20.09.2017 wherein 10 charges were levelled against the
petitioner. Along with the memo of charge, no documents were
provided to the petitioner and even along with memo of charge
(Prapatra-KA) no list of witnesses or documents were
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
6/36
mentioned, except the letter no. 01(C) dated 15.08.2017 of the
Chief Engineer, Flood Control and Water Resource,
Muzaffarpur, which is the letter by which the Chief Engineer
recommended to the Principal Secretary of the Department for
taking action.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner submitted a representation by his letter dated
26.09.2017, addressed to the Principal Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna wherein he
requested for adhering to certain provisions contained under the
Rule for initiating departmental proceeding. When no action
was taken on the request made by the petitioner before the
Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna, the petitioner was constrained to file his show
cause reply on 09.10.2017, before the Joint Secretary-Cum-
Conducting Officer, wherein he denied all the charges levelled
against him and requested the enquiry officer to exonerate him
from the charges levelled against him.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that immediately thereafter vide letter no. 03/Patna
dated 18.10.2017 the petitioner requested the enquiry officer to
direct the presenting officer to provide him the relevant
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
7/36
documents on the basis of which, the departmental proceeding
has been initiated and on the basis of which, the charges against
the petitioner are proposed to be proved. In the said letter, the
petitioner also informed the enquiry officer that on the date
fixed in the enquiry proceeding i.e. 09.10.2017, the petitioner
had orally informed the enquiry officer for providing the said
documents, but till date, the same has not been provided, so that
he can file his detail reply in the departmental proceeding.
Subsequently, vide Letter No. 1921 dated 01.11.2017 issued
under the signature of the Joint Secretary to the Government,
Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna,
addressed to the enquiry officer, it was directed that the letter of
the Chief Engineer, Flood Control and Water Resource,
Muzaffarpur has also been annexed with the memo of charge
and those documents are being asked for by the delinquent,
which has got no relation to the charges levelled against him
and no documents can be asked for by a delinquent, which has
got no concern with the charge and directed the enquiry officer
to proceed against the petitioner and certain other delinquent.
Left with no option, the petitioner vide his Letter No. 07/Patna
dated 20.11.2017 submitted his show cause reply before the
enquiry officer, wherein he again denied all the charges levelled
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
8/36
against him, by giving reply to each and every charge, along
with certain documents in support thereof.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner was against constrained to submit
representation before the enquiry officer vide his letter no.
06/Patna dated 09.11.2017, wherein he again requested the
enquiry officer to provide him the requisite/required documents
and by referring to and enclosing the different letters and
circulars of the State Government, with regard to conducting
the departmental proceeding, requested the enquiry officer to
adhere to the said directions, since the enquiry officer was not
taking signature of the petitioner on the order-sheets to suggest
that the petitioner was appearing on each and every date, to
cooperate in the enquiry proceeding. Again vide letter no.
08/Patna dated 27.11.2017 addressed to the enquiry officer, the
petitioner submitted his explanation in the departmental
proceeding, wherein he again denied all the charges levelled
against him and requested the enquiry officer to exonerate the
petitioner from the charges levelled against him.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that vide Memo No. 132 dated 20.10.2017 issued under
the signature of the Enquiry Officer, addressed to the Joint
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
9/36
Secretary (Vigilance), Water Resources Department, Patna, a
request was made to immediately provide the documents asked
for by different persons, including the petitioner, against whom
departmental proceeding was going on, so that the departmental
proceeding can be concluded within specified time. Again vide
Memo No. 2217 dated 14.12.2017 issued under the signature of
the Joint Secretary to the Government, Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna addressed to the Chief
Engineer, Flood Control and Water Resources, Water Resources
Department, Muzaffarpur it was directed/requested to give his
opinion with regard to the show cause reply submitted by the
petitioner, since the departmental proceeding was initiated
against the petitioner, on the basis of the complaint made by the
said Chief Engineer.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the Chief Engineer showed his inability to provide
his comments on the reply submitted by the petitioner, since at
the relevant time the said Chief Engineer was not posted in
Bagmati Division. Thereafter, vide Memo No. 199 dated
20.02.2018 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary to
the Government, Water Resources Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Flood
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
10/36
Control and Monitoring Circle, Water Resources Department,
Bihar, Patna a request was made to give para-wise comment on
the reply/show cause reply submitted by the different engineers,
including the petitioner, against whom departmental proceeding
is continuing. Vide Memo No. 777 dated 21.03.2018 issued
under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna addressed to the
Enquiry Officer, it was informed that the comments have been
received from the office of the Superintending Engineer, Flood
Control and Monitoring Circle, Patna, which is being annexed
with the said letter and a request was made to the enquiry officer
to proceed with the departmental enquiry. Finally, vide Letter
No. 98 dated 22.05.2018 issued under the signature of the
Enquiry Officer, addressed to the Joint Secretary to the
Government, Water Resources Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna, the enquiry report was submitted, wherein the
enquiry officer found the charge nos.1 & 7 to be proved, while
charge nos. 2, 4 & 6 were found to be partially proved and the
charge nos. 3, 5, 8, 9 & 10 were found to be not proved. After
submission of the enquiry report, vide letter no. 1197 dated
29.05.2018 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary to
the Government, Water Resources Department, Government of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
11/36
Bihar, Patna, the petitioner was directed to file his second show
cause reply and in compliance thereof, vide Letter No. 25/Patna
dated 12.06.2018, the petitioner submitted his reply to the 2nd
show cause notice issued to him, wherein he again denied all the
charges levelled against him and in support of the same he
submitted/provided the relevant documents with his reply.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that vide Letter No. 2141 dated 25.09.2018 issued under
the signature of the Joint Secretary to the Government, Water
Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna the
suspension of the petitioner was revoked and it was decided to
impose punishment against the petitioner. Finally vide order
contained in Memo No. 1258 dated 25.06.2019 issued under the
signature of the Additional Secretary to the Government, Water
Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna the
petitioner was inflicted with punishment of permanent reduction
of 3 pay stages in the time scale of pay and it was further
directed that no further increments will be payable to the
petitioner. In the punishment order it was further mentioned that
opinion of the Bihar Public Service Commission was also taken
on the proposed punishment and the BPSC has given its
concurrence vide Letter No. 520 dated 07.06.2019 on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
12/36
proposed punishment against the petitioner. The petitioner
immediately thereafter vide Letter No. 813 dated 07.08.2019
filed a review petition before the Additional Chief Secretary,
Water Resources Department, Patna against the punishment
imposed on him by the disciplinary authority. Along with the
review petition, the petitioner annexed all the relevant
documents again, by preparing a complete chart of the
documents, for the perusal of the Additional Chief Secretary and
requested him to take appropriate decision in view of the facts
mentioned in the review petition.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the review petition filed by the petitioner was
rejected by the competent authority and the same was
communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 970 dated
21.07.2020 issued under the signature of the Additional
Secretary to the Government, Water Resources Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna. The authority concerned did not
take into consideration the documents annexed by the petitioner,
along with his review petition and proceeded to reject the claim
of the petitioner only on the basis of the enquiry report and the
order passed by the disciplinary authority.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
13/36
submits that vide Letter No. 949 dated 27.08.2021 issued under
the signature of the Additional Secretary to the Government,
Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, the
petitioner was issued notice under Rule 11(5) of the Bihar
Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 that why the period
under suspension i.e. 14.09.2017 to 24.09.2018 be treated to be
not on duty and nothing shall be paid, apart from what has been
paid to him as subsistence allowance. On receipt of the letter
dated 27.08.2021, the petitioner by his Letter No. 04/Dehri dated
01.11.2021 submitted his detailed reply, but vide Letter No.
1360 dated 08.06.2021 issued under the signature of the
Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna the punishment was imposed against the
petitioner that for the period under suspension i.e. 14.09.2017 to
24.09.2018, the petitioner will not be entitled for any other
payment, except the subsistence allowance and the period under
suspension will be counted for the purpose of payment of
pension.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna himself had filed a show cause in
MJC No. 2270 of 2016 (arising out of CWJC No. 23124 of 2014
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
14/36
Shivesh Kumar versus The State of Bihar and Ors.) wherein in
his show cause filed before this Court, he has categorically
stated that he personally inspected the said embankment on
28.08.2017 and he found that the said breaches, for which the
petitioner was charged was on account of natural calamity.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted
in complete violation of the provisions contained in Rule 17(3)
(4) and (14) of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules,
2005, since along with memo of charge, no imputation of
misconduct/documents or list of witnesses were provided to the
petitioner, which caused great prejudice to the case of the
petitioner. Even in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner
was denied the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, since
no witnesses were produced by the department/prosecution,
during course of enquiry, which resulted in denial of opportunity
to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. Further the
petitioner was also not provided an opportunity to produce
defense witnesses , despite him making the request to produce
witnesses in support of his defence. Further no document, except
the letter of the Chief Engineer, which he had written for taking
action against the petitioner, was produced by the department in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
15/36
the entire departmental proceeding, however the enquiry officer
on the basis of the said letter, on his own presumption took the
role of presenting officer and proceeded to prove charge nos.1
and 7 against the petitioner and charge nos. 2, 4 and 6 to be
partially proved and charge nos. 3, 5, 8, 9 & 10 to be not proved.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that in gross violation of the provisions contained in
Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005,
the enquiry officer asked for opinion of the Department, on the
show cause filed by the petitioner, since as per the provisions
contained in Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, the enquiry
officer is required to take independent view and he has to act as
an independent adjudicator, but in the present case, he, with
predetermined mind, asked for the opinion of the department
and based on the said opinion, he proceeded to prove certain
charges against the petitioner. The case against the petitioner is
of no evidence and the entire departmental proceeding was
conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The
department did not examine any witness to prove its charges and
even the Chief Engineer, whose letter was relied upon by the
department, was not examined as a witnesses, although he was a
material witness. The enquiry officer shifted the burden of proof
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
16/36
on the petitioner, rather than the department, although as per the
procedure prescribed, the prosecution was bound to prove the
charges, beyond all reasonable doubt.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to
and relies on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 Roop Singh Negi Versus
Punjab National Bank & Ors. wherein in paragraph nos. 7, 10,
11, 12 and 13 it has been held as follows:-
7. The appellate authority also did not apply
his mind to the contentions raised by the
appellant; no reason was assigned in
support of his conclusion.
On what evidence, the appellant was found
guilty was not stated.
10. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is
a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry
Officer performs a quasi judicial function.
The charges leveled 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
17/36
and did not prove the contents thereof.
Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the
Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not
have been treated as evidence. We have
noticed hereinbefore that the only basic
evidence whereupon reliance has been
placed by the Enquiry Officer was the
purported confession made by the appellant
before the police. According to the
appellant, he was forced to sign on the said
confession, as he was tortured in the police
station. Appellant being an employee of the
bank, the said confession should have been
proved. Some evidence should have been
brought on record to show that he had
indulged in stealing the bank draft book.
Admittedly, there was no direct evidence.
Even there was no indirect evidence. The
tenor of the report demonstrates that the
Enquiry Officer had made up his mind to
find him guilty as otherwise he would not
have proceeded on the basis that the
offence was committed in such a manner
that no evidence was left.
11. In Union of India vs. H.S. Goel [(1964) 4
SCR 718, it was held:
"....The two infirmities are separate and
distinct though, conceivably, in some
cases, both may be present. There may
be cases of no evidence even where the
Government is acting bona fide; the said
infirmity may also exist where the
Government is acting mala fide and in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
18/36
that case, the conclusion of the
Government not supported by any
evidence may be the result of mala fides,
but that does not mean that if it is proved
that there is no evidence to support the
conclusion of the Government, a writ of
certiorari will not issued without further
proof of mala fides. That is why we are
not prepared to accept the learned
Attorney-General's argument that sine
no mala fides are alleged against the
appellant in the present case, no writ of
certiorari can be issued in favour of the
respondent.
That takes us to the merits of the
respondent's contention that the
conclusion of the appellant that the third
charged framed against the respondent
has been proved, is based on no
evidence. The learned Attorney-General
has stressed before us that in dealing
with this question, we ought to bear in
mind the fact that the appellant is acting
with the determination to root out
corruption, and so, if it is shown that the
view taken by he appellant is a
reasonably possible view, this Court
should not sit in appeal over that
decision and seek to decide whether this
Court would have taken the same view
or not. This contention is no doubt
absolutely sound. The only test which we
can legitimately apply in dealing with
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
19/36
this part of the respondents case is, is
there any evidence on which a finding
can be made against the respondent that
charge No. 3 was proved against him? In
exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226
on such a plea, the High Court cannot
consider the question about the
sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in
support of a particular conclusion. That
is a matter which is within the
competence of the authority which dealt
with the question; but the High Court
can and must enquire whether there is
any evidence at all in support of the
impugned conclusion. In other words, if
the whole of the evidence led in the
enquiry is accepted as true, does the
conclusion follow that the charges in
question is proved against the
respondent? This approach will avoid
weighing the evidence. It will take the
evidence as it stands and only examine
whether on that evidence legally the
impugned conclusion follows or not.
Applying this test, we are inclined to
hold that the respondent's grievance is
well-founded because, in our opinion,
the finding which is implicit in the
appellant's order dismissing the
respondent that charge number 3 is
proved against him is based on no
evidence.
12. In Moni Shankar v. Union of India and
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
20/36
Anr. [(2008) 3 SCC 484]. this Court held:
17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi
judicial one. Although the provisions of
the Evidence Act are not applicable in
the said proceeding, principles of
natural justice are required to be
complied with. The Court exercising
power of judicial review are entitled to
consider as to whether while inferring
commission of misconduct on the part of
a delinquent officer relevant piece of
evidence has been taken into
consideration and irrelevant facts have
been excluded therefrom. Inference on
facts must be based on evidence which
meet the requirements of legal
principles. The Tribunal was, thus,
entitled to arrive at its own conclusion
on the premise that the evidence adduced
by the department, even if it is taken on
its face value to be correct in its entirety,
meet the requirements of burden of
proof, namely preponderance of
probability. If on such evidences, the test
of the doctrine of proportionality has not
been satisfied, the Tribunal was within
its domain to interfere. We must place on
record that the doctrine of
unreasonableness is giving way to the
doctrine of proportionality."
13. In Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. (supra),
whereupon both the learned counsel relied
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
21/36
upon, this Court held:
"26. In our opinion the learned Single
Judge and consequently the Division
Bench of the High Court did not pose
unto themselves the correct question.
The matter can be viewed from two
angles. Despite limited jurisdiction a
civil court, it was entitled to interfere in
a case where the report of the Enquiry
Officer is based on no evidence. In a suit
filed by a delinquent employee in a civil
court as also a writ court, in the event
the findings arrived at in the
departmental proceedings are
questioned before it should keep in mind
the following: (1) the enquiry officer is
not permitted to collect any material
from outside sources during the conduct
of the enquiry. [See State of Assam and
Anr. v. Mahendra Kumar Das and Ors.
[(1970) 1 SCC 709] (2) In a domestic
enquiry fairness in the procedure is a
part of the principles of natural justice
[See Khem Chand v. Union of India and
Ors. (1958 SCR 1080) and State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Om Prakash Gupta (1969) 3
SCC 775). (3) Exercise of discretionary
power involve two elements (i) Objective
and (ii) subjective and existence of the
exercise of an objective element is a
condition precedent for exercise of the
subjective element. [See K.L Tripathi v.
State of Bank of India and Ors. (1984) 1
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
22/36
SCC 43]. (4) It is not possible to lay
down any rigid rules of the principles of
natural justice which depends on the
facts and circumstances of each case but
the concept of fair play in action is the
basis. [See Sawai Singh v. State of
Rajasthan (1986) 3 SCC 454] (5) The
enquiry officer is not permitted to travel
beyond the charges and any punishment
imposed on the basis of a finding which
was not the subject matter of the charges
is wholly illegal. [See Director
(Inspection & quality Control) Export
Inspection Council of India and Ors. v.
Kalyan Kumar Mitra and Ors. 1987 (2)
Cal. LJ 344. (6) Suspicion or
presumption cannot take the place of
proof even in a domestic enquiry. The
writ court is entitled to interfere with the
findings of the fact of any tribunal or
authority in certain circumstances. [See
Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash
Chand Jain (1969) 1 SCR 735. Kuldeep
Singh v. Commissioner of Police and
Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 10]."
The judgment and decree passed against
the respondent therein had attained finality.
In the said suit, the enquiry report in the
disciplinary proceeding was considered, the
same was held to have been based on no
evidence. Appellant therein in the
aforementioned situation filed a Writ
Petition questioning the validity of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
23/36
disciplinary proceeding, the same was
dismissed. This Court held that when a
crucial finding like forgery was arrived at
on an evidence which is non est in the eye
of the law, the civil court would have
jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. This
Court emphasized that a finding can be
arrived at by the Enquiry Officer if there is
some evidence on record. It was
furthermore found that the order of the
appellate authority suffered from non
application of mind. This Court referred to
its earlier decision in Capt. M. Paul
Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. ((1999)
3 SCC 679] to opine:
"41. We may not be understood to have laid
down a law that in all such
circumstances the decision of the civil
court or the criminal court would be
binding on the disciplinary authorities as
this Court in a large number of decisions
points point that the same would depend
upon other factors as well. See e.g.
Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil
Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh and
Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 200 and Manager,
Reserve Bank of India Bangalore v. S.
Mani and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 100. Each
case is, therefore, required to be
considered on its own facts.
42. It is equally well settled that the power
of judicial review would not be refused
to be exercised by the High Court,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
24/36
although despite it would be lawful to do
so. In Manager, Reserve Bank of India
Bangalore (supra) this Court observed:
39. The findings of the learned Tribunal,
as noticed hereinbefore, are wholly
perverse. It apparently posed unto
itself wrong questions. It placed onus
of proof wrongly upon the appellant.
Its decision is based upon irrelevant
factors not germane for the purpose
of arriving at a correct finding of fact.
It has also failed to take into
consideration the relevant factors. A
case for judicial review, thus, was
made out."
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 State of
U.P. Versus Saroj Kumar Sinha, wherein in paragraph 9, 10,
12, and 15 it has been held as follows:-
“9. Being unaware of the inquiry report
dated 3-8-2001 the respondent made the
representation dated 6-10-2001 to the
new Inquiry Officer, G.S. Kahlon
praying for supply of the relevant
documents numbering 19 to enable him
to prepare an appropriate reply to the
charge-sheet and to prepare his defence.
Since, no response was received from the
inquiry officer the respondent sent a
reminder dated 22-11-2001. The last
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
25/36
reminder submitted by the respondent is
dated 3-3-2002.
10. The respondent later came to learn that
the inquiry officer had addressed a
communication to the Government dated
8-4-2002 stating that the inquiry report
dated 3-8-2001 submitted by the former
Inquiry Officer, Mr I.D. Singhal “seems
to be correct” because the delinquent
officer should be deemed to have
accepted the charges levelled against
him inasmuch as he had not submitted
the reply/explanation to the charge-
sheet. Based on the inquiry report dated
8-4-2002, which merely reiterated the
findings in the inquiry report dated 3-8-
2001, the respondent was served with a
show-cause notice dated 29-4-2003.
12. The respondent furnished the certified
copy of the aforesaid order to the
appellant on 25-7-2003. In this
communication the respondent also
mentioned that he would soon submit a
detailed representation/reply in response
to the show-cause notice dated 29-4-
2003. He accordingly submitted the
representation on 6-8-2003 briefly
touching upon the circumstances in
which the aforesaid two inquiries were
held. He pointed out that the aforesaid
two inquiries had been held in patent
violation of principles of natural justice,
fairness and justice, as well as the basic
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
26/36
requirements of law relating to
departmental enquiry. The respondent
reiterated his utter helplessness in
making an effective reply to the show-
cause notice as he had not been supplied
with the relevant documents in spite of
numerous representations and
reminders. He again made a plea for
supply of documents.
15. It was not disputed before the High
Court nor is it disputed before us that the
documents were not supplied to the
respondent. In fact, in the counter-
affidavit filed before the High Court, in
reply to the grievance made by the
respondent in the writ petition, about
non-supply of the documents, it has been
stated as under:
“The petitioner has requested for supply
of certain documents to the inquiry
officer regarding which it is stated that
the petitioner has been informed that
the documents pertains to the division
in which the petitioner has been
posted as Executive Engineer.
Therefore, it was not required to
supply the same as the documents
were in his custody and the petitioner
has deliberately delayed the filing of
reply. Therefore, inquiry officer has
sent the enquiry report after the
completion of enquiry to the
Government on the basis of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
27/36
documents on 3-8-2001.”
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court on 21.08.2024 in LPA No. 446 of
2024 State of Bihar & Ors. Versus Vikash Kumar, wherein in
paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13 it has been held as follows:-
8. The decisions in Union of India v. Mohd.
Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 and
ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727;
considered the issue of denial of reasonable
opportunity, when the enquiry report was
not supplied to the delinquent employee;
after the 42nd amendment of the
Constitution of India. Before the 42nd
amendment of the Constitution, there was a
requirement to issue notice to the
delinquent employee to show-cause against
the punishment proposed, for which a
reasonable opportunity of making
representation on the penalty proposed was
a mandatory condition under Article 311
(2) of the Constitution of India. The 42 nd
amendment removed the above condition
and it was the contention of the employers
that there was no requirement to supply the
enquiry report. It was categorically held
that whenever the Enquiry Officer is
someone other than the Disciplinary
Authority and the report of the Enquiry
Officer holds the employee guilty of all or
any of the charges; with proposal for any
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
28/36
punishment or not, the delinquent employee
is entitled to a copy of the report to enable
him to make a representation to the
Disciplinary Authority against the findings
in the report.
9. The non-furnishing of the report, hence
amounts to violation of principles of
natural justice; in which context a remand
is necessitated, to supply the enquiry report
and afford a reasonable opportunity to the
delinquent to represent against the
prejudicial findings. The remand is to cure
the technical defect, so as to avoid any
prejudice being caused to the delinquent, by
reason of denial of a reasonable
opportunity, before being penalized and not
to clear up the lacuna committed by the
Management in the conduct of the enquiry;
especially when the enquiry was carried out
in a negligent manner without adducing
any valid evidence.
10. ECIL (supra) by a larger Bench, on a
reference made, reaffirmed the dictum in
Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra). These were
cases in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court
found that a reasonable opportunity, to
defend the allegation of misconduct levelled
and represent against the findings of the
enquiry report, was not afforded to the
delinquent employee; in which case alone
there could be a remand made for the
purpose of curing the defect and affording a
reasonable opportunity to the delinquent
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
29/36
employee.
12. Despite the well-settled position, it is
painfully disturbing to note that the High
Court has acted as an appellate authority
in the disciplinary proceedings,
reappreciating even the evidence before the
enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I
was accepted by the disciplinary authority
and was also endorsed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary
proceedings, the High Court is not and
cannot act as a second court of first appeal.
The High Court, in exercise of its powers
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
of India, shall not venture into
reappreciation of the evidence. The High
Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent
authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of
natural justice in conducting the
proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves
from reaching a fair conclusion by some
considerations extraneous to the evidence
and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to
be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous
considerations;
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
30/36
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so
wholly arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could ever have arrived
at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
failed to admit the admissible and material
evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence which
influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court shall
not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the
enquiry, in case the same has been
conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence
on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it
may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment
unless it shocks its conscience.
19. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State
submits that there was a breach in the left embankment of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
31/36
Bagmati River and the petitioner, being the Executive Engineer
at the relevant time, did not take care to repair the said breach
immediately and his phone was found to be switched off,
therefore the department took a decision to place him under
suspension and to initiate departmental proceeding against him.
In the departmental proceeding, all the provisions contained in
Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 were followed
and the petitioner was given an opportunity to appear in the
departmental proceeding and to to place his defence. The
enquiry officer after a detailed enquiry, wherein the petitioner
participated, proceeded to found certain charges against the
petitioner to be proved, while found some of the charges to be
partially proved and the remaining charges to be not proved. The
enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report, which was
examined by the disciplinary authority and he by agreeing with
the findings and conclusion of the enquiry officer, issued second
show cause notice to the petitioner and after considering the
show cause reply submitted by the petitioner, he proceeded to
award punishment against the petitioner. Even the authority
concerned who proceeded to reject the review petition filed by
the petitioner, considered the points raised by the petitioner in
his review petition. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
32/36
passed by the disciplinary authority or the authority concerned,
who rejected the review petition of the petitioner.
20. The learned counsel for the State further
submits that all the relevant documents, which the petitioner was
asking for, were already in his possession and the petitioner was
asking for the said documents, only with a view to delay the
conclusion of the department proceeding. From perusal of the
impugned order, it would transpire that the same is a reasoned
and a speaking order. He submits that besides natural calamity,
seepage and piping were also found to be reason for breach of
embankment, which is clear from the inspection report of the
Chief Engineer and the petitioner could have prevented the
seepage and piping by making regular inspection and executing
flood fighting work in time.
21. The learned counsel for the State finally submits
that the order passed by the authorities concerned i.e. the
disciplinary authority and the authority who had rejected the
review petition of the petitioner, are based on reasoning and
after examining the evidences brought before them, including
the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner and the defence
taken by him in the review petition, therefore there is no
infirmity in the orders impugned.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
33/36
22. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of the documents available on record, this
Court finds that before issuance of memo of charge, no
opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his show cause
reply, that why departmental proceeding be not initiated against
him, since along with the decision to initiate departmental
proceeding, the enquiry officer and the presenting officer were
already appointed by the disciplinary authority. Further along
with memo of charge (prapatra-Ka), no list of documents or
witnesses were provided/given, upon which the departmental
authorities intended to rely in the departmental proceeding,
which is in complete violation of the provisions contained in
Rule 17(3) and (4) of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA)
Rules, 2005. Further, since no documents were produced/relied
upon by the prosecution, during the entire departmental
proceeding, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to rebut the
charges levelled against him and to cross examine the witnesses,
which is in complete violation of the provisions contained in
Rule 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules,
2005. Even the petitioner was denied an opportunity to bring
defence witnesses in support of his case, which resulted in
miscarriage of justice and caused prejudiced to the case of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
34/36
petitioner. Even during the departmental enquiry, the enquiry
officer on his own proceeded to prove the charges against him,
without the presenting officer bringing/relying on any document
or evidence to support the case of the prosecution/department.
23. Further from the document it appears that the
Additional Chief Secretary of the Department himself had filed
a show cause before this Court in a contempt petition, wherein
he has categorically averred that after spot inspection by him he
found that due to excessive rain, the Bagmati river crossed its
previous mark/record by reaching 72.60 meter i.e. 26 c.m.
higher then the 2014 record, making it impossible to prevent the
said breach with human effort alone and the said point was taken
by the petitioner in his review petition and in his show cause
reply, even then the same was not considered by the disciplinary
authority or the authority concerned, who rejected the review
petition of the petitioner.
24. From the judgments relied upon by the
petitioner, it reflects that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court have deprecated
the action of the enquiry officer in assuming the role of the
presenting officer and without any evidence, proceed to submit
the enquiry report by finding the charges to be proved. In the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
35/36
present case, the same has been done, since without any
evidence, the enquiry officer, proceeded to prove some of the
charges to be proved and some to be partially proved.
25. Accordingly from the consideration made
above, the order contained in Memo No. 1258 dated 25.06.2019,
Memo No. 1608 dated 14.09.2017 and Memo No. 1360 dated
08.06.2022 deserves to be set aside and are accordingly set
aside.
26. The petitioner shall be entitled for all the
increments, which has been forfeited by the disciplinary
authority by the impugned order of punishment dated
25.06.2019 as well as the pay scale which he was entitled, prior
to passing of the impugned order of punishment and he will be
entitled for payment of full salary for the period under which he
was under suspension. No purpose would be served to remit the
matter back to the authorities concerned for proceeding afresh,
from the defective stage, since when the Additional Chief
Secretary of the Department has himself admitted the fact in his
show cause filed in M.J.C. No. 2270 of 2016, that the breach
was on account of excessive rain and the Bagmati River crossed
its highest level of 2014.
27. The writ petition is allowed in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2726 of 2022 dt.25-03-2026
36/36
aforementioned terms.
28. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 10.02.2026
Uploading Date 25.03.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.