Patna High Court
Animesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the disciplinary authority failed to prove that the petitioner’s absence was willful, rendering the suspension and initiation of disciplinary proceedings unlawful.
Summary
The petitioner, a Bihar Administrative Service officer, was suspended while on medical leave for a psychosomatic disorder and faced departmental proceedings for alleged unauthorized absence. He contended that his absence was due to bona‑fide illness, supported by contemporaneous medical certificates, and that procedural defects in his leave applications should not justify disciplinary action. The State argued that the suspension was valid under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Bihar CCA Rules because a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated. The Court examined the burden of proof on the disciplinary authority to establish willful absence, the legality of suspending an officer without a pending enquiry, and the excessive delay in the proceedings. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that no finding of willfulness existed and that the suspension and initiation of proceedings were unlawful. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the suspension and charge memo were quashed, and the petitioner was ordered reinstated with all consequential benefits and consideration for IAS promotion.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s absence constitutes willful unauthorized absence justifying suspension under Rule 9(1)(a) and Rule 3 of the Bihar Government Servants' Conduct Rules.
- Whether suspension can be imposed in the absence of a pending disciplinary proceeding.
- Whether procedural irregularities in the format of leave applications bar disciplinary action.
- Whether the duration of the suspension violates the principle of speedy trial and statutory time‑limits for disciplinary proceedings.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement, subsistence allowance, and promotion benefits, including consideration for IAS induction.
Subjects
- suspension
- disciplinary proceedings
- medical leave
- willful absence
- service law
- Article 226
- Bihar Service Code
- procedural fairness
- promotion
- IAS induction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2732 of 2025
======================================================
Animesh Kumar S/o Sri Bharat Bhushan Kumar resident of -H 01, Near
Futani Chowk, Officers Colony Mirchaibari, Katihar, Katihar, Bihar, 854105.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The District Magistrate, Katihar.
4. The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sourav Suman, Advocate
Ms. Pragati Patra, Advocate
Mr. Sushant Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Aalekh Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Verma, A.A.G.-3
Dr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, A.C. to AAG-3
Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, A.C. to AAG-3
Mr. Raghwendra Kumar, S.C.-22
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, A.C. to S.C.-22
For the Union of India : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 15-05-2026
The present writ petition has been preferred under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India along with four
successive Interlocutory Applications, by which the petitioner,
who is a member of the Bihar Administrative Service, has
assailed the action of the respondents in placing him under
suspension during the currency of his medical leave and in
initiating departmental proceedings against him under Rule 17
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
2/36
of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 2005.
2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the
memo no.1396 dated 23.01.2025 issued by the General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar, whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has been placed under suspension in
exercise of powers conferred under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Bihar
Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
2005. Consequently, the petitioner has also prayed for a
direction upon the respondent authorities for revocation of his
suspension and to reinstate him in service with immediate
effect. The petitioner has furthermore prayed for a direction
upon the respondent authorities to ensure that his suspension
should not have any adverse effect on his promotion and grant
of other consequential benefits.
3. By way of filing Interlocutory Application
No.01 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed for amending the
prayer portion of the main writ petition and challenged the
Article of Charge (Prapatra-Ka) prepared by the District
Magistrate, Katihar vide letter No.1408 dated 27.12.2023.
Through Interlocutory Application No.02 of 2025, the petitioner
has again prayed for amending the prayer portion and
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
3/36
challenged the Memo No.15354 dated 19.08.2025, whereby the
departmental proceeding has been initiated against him under
Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
4. In Interlocutory Application No.03 of 2025,
the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the Union Public
Service Commission to consider the candidature of the
petitioner for his induction into the Indian Administrative
Service cadre or alternatively to withhold the final publication
of the notification regarding induction of officers in the I.A.S.
cadre until the disposal of the present writ petition.
5. In Interlocutory Application No.04 of 2025,
the petitioner has also prayed for amending the prayer portion of
the main writ petition and has prayed for grant of stay of the
ongoing departmental enquiry against him, which is being
conducted by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur.
6. The brief factual matrix relevant for the
present purpose is that the petitioner is an Officer of the Bihar
Administrative Service, having joined the service in the year
1996. In the month of September, 2021, the petitioner was
transferred to the District of Katihar as Senior Deputy Collector.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is a longstanding patient of
psychosomatic disorder, for several years and has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
4/36
undergoing regular treatment at Medanta Hospital, New Delhi
as well as at AlIMS, Delhi. It is further the case of the petitioner
that earlier also he had remained on leave for a period exceeding
four years for his treatment for the said ailment and the said
leave was duly regularized by the General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, as extraordinary leave.
7. It is further the case of the petitioner that in
the early months of the year 2023, the health of the petitioner
started deteriorating, accordingly he applied for casual leave for
four days, for the purpose of his medical checkup, which was
duly approved by the District Magistrate, Katihar. Accordingly,
the petitioner availed his approved casual leave for four days
starting from 25.04.2023 to 28.04.2023. The petitioner was
medically examined on 27.04.2023 wherein he was advised for
complete bed rest and to remain under strict vigilance.
8. It is also the case of the petitioner that he
was continuously in touch with the District Magistrate, Katihar
and had sent his contemporaneous medical records for seeking
sanction of earned leave and subsequently extension thereof. On
17.06.2023, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice
alleging that after the expiry of the initial four days sanctioned
casual leave, he remained absent without authorization. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
5/36
petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause vide e-mail
dated 24.06.2023 explaining that he was suffering from
Psychosomatic Disorder for a long period of time for which he
had undergone prolonged treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi and
Medanta Hospital and the treating physician had advised bed
rest and strict vigilance. However, the General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar vide its letter dated
02.11.2023 and a reminder letter dated 28.11.2023 issued show
cause notices regarding his unauthorized absence from duty, to
the petitioner which were received by him, through WhatsApp
only. The petitioner submitted his detailed response on
30.12.2023. The General Administration Department, thereafter,
sought opinion from the District Magistrate, Katihar on the
detailed response submitted by the petitioner on 30.12.2023,
which was responded to, by the District Magistrate, Katihar,
opining that the absence of the petitioner is an act of misconduct
under Rule-3(i), 3(ii) and 3(iii) of the Bihar Government
Servant Conduct Rules, 1976. Subsequently, a memo of charge
was prepared and forwarded to the General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
9. After lapse of more than one year and seven
months, the petitioner was suspended vide Resolution dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
6/36
23.01.2025 under Rule-9(1)(a) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005
and during the suspension period, the headquarters of the
petitioner was fixed at the office of the Divisional
Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur and further it
was directed that the petitioner would be entitled to subsistence
allowance under Rule 10 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
Initially the petitioner had challenged the aforesaid resolution of
suspension in the present writ petition, which was subsequently,
enlarged owing to subsequent developments in the disciplinary
proceeding.
10. Thereafter, by letter no.1939 dated
31.01.2025, the General Administration Department forwarded
the approved Article of Charge to the petitioner at his permanent
address at Katihar requiring him to submit his response within a
fortnight. Thereafter, by letter no.248/Estab. dated 19.02.2025,
the Office of the Commissioner, Bhagalpur reported to the
General Administration Department that the petitioner had not
joined the headquarters at Bhagalpur, on account of which the
aforesaid letter dated 31.01.2025 could not be handed over to
him. A reminder letter was sent to the petitioner vide letter
no.3875 dated 06.03.2025 by Speed Post and e-mail, seeking the
response of the petitioner on the Articles of Charge. Thereafter,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
7/36
the petitioner responded to the aforesaid show-cause. After a
lapse of approximately four months from the reply dated
22.04.2025, and during the pendency of the present writ
petition, the General Administration Department passed a
Resolution vide memo No.15354 dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure
P/15) holding that the explanation submitted by the petitioner
was “misleading” and not based on facts, and thereafter the
respondent authorities initiated departmental proceedings
against him under Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. By
the aforesaid impugned Resolution, the Divisional
Commissioner, Bhagalpur was appointed as Conducting Officer
and the District Magistrate, Katihar was directed to nominate a
senior officer as Presenting Officer. Aggrieved, the petitioner
challenged the said resolution by filing I.A. No.02 of 2025.
11. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that
the Union Public Service Commission had scheduled a meeting
of the Selection Committee slated for 08.10.2025 for inducting
Bihar Administrative Services officers into the Indian
Administrative Services cadre. Apprehending that his name
would be passed over on account of the suspension and the
pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A.
No.03 of 2025, inter alia, praying for impleadment of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
8/36
U.P.S.C. as respondent No.4 to the present writ petition and for
an appropriate order to be passed directing the U.P.S.C. to
consider his candidature on provisional basis or alternatively,
withhold the final publication of the notification. The petitioner
also placed reliance on the procedural circular issued by the
Government of Bihar i.e. letter no.2763 dated 26.02.2014
prescribing time-lines for completion of departmental
proceedings, and letter issued by the Chief Secretary vide letter
No.23061 dated 21.12.2022 incorporating the directions passed
by this Court in State of Bihar v. Sagar Kumar Roy, L.P.A.
No.1203 of 2019 reported as 2022 SCC OnLine Pat 7449.
12. This Court vide order 07.10.2025 had
directed that the case of the petitioner be considered by the
U.P.S.C. in its meeting scheduled on 08.10.2025 for
appointment to the I.A.S. on a provisional basis, subject to the
outcome of the present lis. Notwithstanding the same, the
departmental enquiry pursuant to Resolution no.15354 dated
19.08.2025 was set down for hearing before the Conducting
Officer at Bhagalpur.
13. After the meeting of the Selection
Committee of the U.P.S.C. held on 08.10.2025, the name of the
petitioner did not figure in the selected list. Aggrieved thereby,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
9/36
the petitioner has filed Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3699
of 2025 (in C.W.J.C. No.2732 of 2025) and Miscellaneous
Jurisdiction Case No.3700 of 2025 (in C.W.J.C. No.10493 of
2024) seeking contempt action against the concerned officers
for alleged non-compliance of the order dated 07.10.2025
passed by this Court.
14. On 17.01.2026, the petitioner filed I.A. No.
04 of 2025 praying for stay of the ongoing departmental enquiry
being conducted by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur.
15. By letter No.1615 dated 22.01.2026, the
Under Secretary, General Administration Department, directed
the Director, Information and Public Relations, Bihar to publish
a press release in two leading daily newspapers, calling upon the
petitioner to join his suspension headquarters at Bhagalpur
within fifteen days, and to cooperate in the departmental
enquiry, failing which rule-based further action would be taken.
The said press release recites that the petitioner has remained
continuously absent since 29.04.2023 and that he has not joined
his suspension headquarters at Bhagalpur. Further, he has
remained absent in the departmental proceeding.
16. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner
has principally challenged the initiation of the disciplinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
10/36
proceedings and the suspension of the petitioner.
17. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, has taken this Court
through the entire chronology of correspondences, the medical
history of the petitioner, the impugned Resolutions, the memo of
charge and the proceedings before the enquiry officer, and has
assailed each of the impugned actions being unsustainable in the
eyes of law.
18. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the absence of the petitioner from duty was the
result of compelling circumstances of illness viz.,
Psychosomatic Disorder, under which it was not possible for
him to report to duty. The petitioner is admittedly a long-
standing patient who has previously undergone treatment at
AIIMS, New Delhi and Medanta Hospital, New Delhi, where a
Panel of Doctors at AIIMS, New Delhi conducted a detailed
evaluation of his condition on 02.03.2017. The earlier spell of
leave of more than four years for the same disease was duly
regularized by the General Administration Department itself.
The treating physician of the petitioner has, on every
examination since 27.04.2023, consistently advised bed rest and
strict vigilance.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
11/36
19. It is the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel that the petitioner has, with each leave-extension
request, enclosed contemporaneous medical prescriptions of the
treating physician. The medical condition is admitted by the
respondents in their counter affidavit, wherein the respondents
themselves do not view that the petitioner is making pretence of
his illness.
20. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel,
places strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, (2012) 3
SCC 178. It is the argument of the learned Senior Counsel that
the case of the petitioner is a fortiori stronger than that of
Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra), inasmuch as the instant
petitioner had left headquarters only on duly sanctioned casual
leave and had submitted prior applications with prescriptions for
each extension thereto. It is further submitted that even the
respondent State has admitted the bona fides of the illness of the
petitioner.
21. Further the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on Chennai Metropolitan Water
Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, reported as
(2014) 4 SCC 108, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
12/36
reaffirmed that it is obligatory on the part of the disciplinary
authority to come to a conclusion that the absence is willful.
22. It is the categorical submission of the learned
Senior Counsel that under the law settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra), the burden
lies on the Disciplinary Authority to prove that the absence is
willful, and without such a finding, the absence cannot amount
to misconduct. It is submitted that, pertinently the Disciplinary
Authority has not, at any stage, recorded a finding of
willfulness, on the contrary, it has admitted the bona fides of the
illness. It is therefore the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Resolution of
suspension dated 23.01.2025, the charge memo (Prapatra-Ka)
dated 27.12.2023 and the Resolution dated 19.08.2025 are thus
founded upon a non-existent foundation.
23. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel,
submits that the only ground on which the Respondents have
rejected the leave applications of the petitioner is that the
applications were not in the prescribed format. Further, it is
argued that the prescribed format requires the date of
resumption of duty, which cannot be filled in a case of serious
medical treatment wherein strict vigilance under the physician
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
13/36
has been advised. The petitioner has expressly undertaken in his
reply dated 24.06.2023 to submit the form in the prescribed
format upon resumption of duty, for post-facto regularization
under Rule 180 of the Bihar Service Code.
24. Learned Senior Counsel submits that
procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should
not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice.
It is emphasised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
that procedure, a handmaiden to justice, should never be made a
tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice.
25. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel,
further relies on Chhel Singh vs. M.G.B. Gramin Bank, Pali &
Ors. reported as (2014) 13 SCC 166, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that unless the medical reports are
forged or fabricated, it is not open to the Inquiry Officer or the
Disciplinary Authority to disbelieve the medical certificates
issued by the Doctors without any valid reason. It is emphasized
by the learned Senior Counsel that the medical prescriptions of
the petitioner are of unimpeachable character, having been
issued by the AIIMS, New Delhi and have not been
controverted by the respondents.
26. It is the next submission on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
14/36
petitioner that all matters relating to leave of Government
servants are governed by the Bihar Service Code and no
provision of the Code authorizes suspension of an employee
who is on medical leave and who is regularly communicating
his health condition duly supported by medical prescriptions to
the concerned authorities. It is not in dispute that the Rule
180(b) of the Code further empowers the authority to regularize
leave post-facto.
“180. (a) In special circumstances and when no
other leave is under these Rules
admissible, extraordinary leave may be
granted. Such leave is not debited
against the leave account. No leave-
salary is admissible during such leave.
(b) The authority empowered to sanction
leave may grant extraordinary leave in
combination with, or in continuation of,
any leave that is admissible, and may
commute retrospectively period of
absence without leave into extraordinary
leave.
Note 1.- The State Government may for special
reasons dispense with the condition that
extraordinary leave may be granted only
when no other leave is by Rule
admissible, provided that a Government
servant cannot be compelled to take
extraordinary leave when leave with
allowances is admissible to him.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
15/36
Note 2.- The power of commuting period of
absence without leave into extraordinary
leave under sub-rule (b) is absolute; in
other words, such commutation is
permissible even when other leave was
admissible to Government servant at the
time his absence without leave
commenced.”
27. So far as the reliance on Rule 152 of the
Bihar Service Code, by the Respondents it is the submission of
the learned Senior Counsel that the said Rule entitles the leave-
sanctioning authority to refuse or revoke leave only when the
exigencies of public service, so require. It is categorically
emphasized by the learned Senior Counsel that the Respondents,
in the present case, have never invoked Rule 152 and have never
declared any exigency, moreover the respondents have never
refused or revoked the leave of the petitioner. The rule cannot,
therefore, be invoked retrospectively to convert duly-
communicated medical leave into unauthorized absence.
28. The next submission of the learned Senior
Counsel is that Rule 9(1)(a) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005,
permits suspension only when a disciplinary proceeding against
the Government servant is contemplated or is pending.
Pertinently, on 23.01.2025, when the suspension order was
passed, neither was a disciplinary proceeding pending nor was
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
16/36
one validly contemplated, as such it is the submission of the
learned Senior Counsel that the suspension of the petitioner is
not sustainable. It is emphasized on behalf of the petitioner that
the Articles of Charge was, only formally framed by the General
Administration Department and sent to the petitioner by Letter
No.1939 dated 31.01.2025, i.e., eight days after the suspension.
Even the resolution under Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005 initiating departmental proceedings vide resolution
No.15354 came on 19.08.2025 only, that is, nearly seven
months after suspension. Therefore it is the categorical
submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that
the prolonged and indefinite suspension of the petitioner is not
sustainable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to
Govt (Home) vs. Promod Kumar, IPS reported as (2018) 17
SCC 677.
29. It is further submitted that the impugned
Resolution of suspension was passed 23.01.2025, i.e., nineteen
months after the first reply submitted by the petitioner and
thirteen months after the second reply of the petitioner. The
departmental proceedings were initiated by Resolution dated
19.08.2025, i.e., approximately twenty-five months after the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
17/36
first reply. It is emphasized that the delay is unexplained and the
respondent authorities have themselves have come out with a
Circular dated 26.02.2014 prescribing time-lines, which has
been flouted.
30. Reliance is placed on Amresh Shrivastava v.
State of M.P., reported as 2025 SCC OnLIne SC 693, wherein it
has been held that if there is an unexplained and inordinate
delay in initiating departmental proceedings, despite the alleged
misconduct being within the knowledge of the department, the
benefit must go to the employee.
31. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents has, opposed the writ petition and prayed for its
dismissal in limine. It is submitted that the respondent
authorities have duly initiated departmental proceeding against
the petitioner, which is yet to conclude and therefore, the present
writ petition is premature. A mere charge-sheet/show-cause
notice does not give rise to a cause of action. The remedy of the
petitioner, if any, lies within the departmental forum, where he
must place his defence before the enquiry officer. Reliance is
placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union
of India vs. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357, wherein it has
been held that a mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
18/36
not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount
to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless
the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to
do so.
32. It is the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel for the respondents that this Court exercising writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not an
appellate forum to review the merits of disciplinary action.
33. Learned Senior Counsel for the State has
submitted that the disciplinary authority as on the date of
suspension of the petitioner had duly received the Articles of
charge framed by the District Magistrate, Katihar vide letter
dated 27.12.2023 together with his opinion dated 13.07.2024
reaffirming the unauthorized absence. It is emphasized by
learned Senior Counsel for the State that the grave nature of the
charge, that is, continued unauthorised absence from
29.04.2023, well over eighteen months as on the date of
suspension, together with the contemplation of regular
departmental proceedings under Rule 17 squarely attracted Rule
9(1)(a) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and therefore, the
suspension of the petitioner was not in contravention of the
CCA Rules.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
19/36
34. Adverting to the Bihar Service Code, learned
Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the Bihar
Service Code permits leave only when applied for in the
prescribed form which is then sanctioned by the competent
authority and accepted by the said authority. In the present case,
the petitioner has failed to make a proper application in the
prescribed format and as such, his leave beyond the sanction
casual leave was never approved and the petitioner has
remained on unauthorized absence.
35. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the petitioner admittedly never applied for
earned leave in the prescribed format and he only sent informal
e-mails. Further, the District Magistrate, Katihar has no power
to grant earned leave to a Senior Deputy Collector and the
competent authority for grant of earned leave for a Senior
Deputy Collector, is the General Administration Department.
36. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
submits that the fixation of suspension headquarters at the office
of the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur is the prerogative of
the Disciplinary Authority and cannot be challenged as a matter
of right. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot insist
on a particular place of headquarters as a matter of right.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
20/36
Furthermore, it is emphasized that though the petitioner has
failed to join the suspension Headquarter yet, he has been
drawing the subsistence allowance.
37. It is argued by learned Senior counsel for the
respondents that the petitioner being a senior administrative
officer occupies a sensitive administrative position and his
prolonged absence cripples the administration
38. I have considered the rival submissions
advanced by the parties and have meticulously perused the
materials brought on record.
39. At the outset, this Court is conscious of the
well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that this Court,
while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, cannot act as an appellate forum over
disciplinary authorities and does not, ordinarily, undertake re-
appreciation of evidence or substitute its own conclusion for
that of the competent authority. This Court has only to examine
whether the action is by a competent authority, whether the
procedure prescribed has been followed and whether the
principles of natural justice have been observed.
40. From the perusal of the records, it is clear
that the petitioner has not only challenged the initiation of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
21/36
disciplinary proceedings, but has also challenged his continued
and unending suspension.
41. Therefore, the core question that must be
addressed in this matter is whether the absence of the petitioner
from headquarters from 29.04.2023 constitutes willful and
unauthorized absence justifying suspension and initiation of
disciplinary proceedings, or whether it is absence brought about
by compelling circumstances of bona fide illness. The locus
classicus on the subject is Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra)
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“16. In the case of the appellant referring to
unauthorised absence the disciplinary authority
alleged that he failed to maintain devotion to duty
and his behaviour was unbecoming of a
government servant. The question whether
“unauthorised absence from duty” amounts to
failure of devotion to duty or behaviour
unbecoming of a government servant cannot be
decided without deciding the question whether
absence is wilful or because of compelling
circumstances.
17. If the absence is the result of compelling
circumstances under which it was not possible to
report or perform duty, such absence cannot be
held to be willful. Absence from duty without any
application or prior permission may amount to
unauthorised absence, but it does not always
mean wilful. There may be different eventualities
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
22/36
due to which an employee may abstain from duty,
including compelling circumstances beyond his
control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc.,
but in such case the employee cannot be held
guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour
unbecoming of a government servant.
18. In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of
unauthorised absence from duty is made, the
disciplinary authority is required to prove that
the absence is wilful, in the absence of such
finding, the absence will not amount to
misconduct.
19. In the present case the inquiry officer on
appreciation of evidence though held that the
appellant was unauthorisedly absent from duty
but failed to hold that the absence was wilful; the
disciplinary authority as also the appellate
authority, failed to appreciate the same and
wrongly held the appellant guilty.
20. The question relating to jurisdiction of the court
in judicial review in a departmental proceeding
fell for consideration before this Court in M.V.
Bijlani v. Union of India [(2006) 5 SCC 88: 2006
SCC (L&S) 919] wherein this Court held: (SCC p.
95, para 25)
“25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the
court in judicial review is limited.
Disciplinary proceedings, however, being
quasi-criminal in nature, there should be
some evidence to prove the charge.
Although the charges in a departmental
proceeding are not required to be proved
like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
23/36
reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of
the fact that the enquiry officer performs a
quasi-judicial function, who upon
analysing the documents must arrive at a
conclusion that there had been a
preponderance of probability to prove the
charges on the basis of materials on
record. While doing so, he cannot take into
consideration any irrelevant fact. He
cannot refuse to consider the relevant
facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof.
He cannot reject the relevant testimony of
the witnesses only on the basis of surmises
and conjectures. He cannot enquire into
the allegations with which the delinquent
officer had not been charged with.”
21. In the present case, the disciplinary authority
failed to prove that the absence from duty was
wilful, no such finding has been given by the
inquiry officer or the appellate authority. Though
the appellant had taken a specific defence that he
was prevented from attending duty by Shri P.
Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanpur who prevented
him to sign the attendance register and also
brought on record 11 defence exhibits in support
of his defence that he was prevented to sign the
attendance register, this includes his letter dated
3-10-1995 addressed to Shri K.P. Jain, JD, SIB,
Ahmedabad, receipts from STD/PCO office of
telephone calls dated 29-9-1995, etc. but such
defence and evidence were ignored and on the
basis of irrelevant fact and surmises the inquiry
officer held the appellant guilty.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
24/36
22. Mr P. Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanpur, who was
the complainant and against whom the appellant
alleged bias refused to appear before the inquiry
officer in spite of service of summons. Two other
witnesses, Shri Jivrani and Shri L.N. Thakkar
made no statement against the appellant, and one
of them stated that he had no knowledge about the
absence of the appellant. Ignoring the aforesaid
evidence, on the basis of surmises and
conjectures, the inquiry officer held the charge
proved.
23. Though the aforesaid facts were noticed by the
appellate authority but ignoring such facts giving
reference of extraneous allegations which were
not the part of the charge, it dismissed the appeal
with the following uncalled for observation:
“The appellant even avoided the basic
training required for the job and asked
JAD, Ahmedabad to send all the training
papers for his training at IB Training
School, Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh) to his
residence at Ahmedabad. ‘An untrained
officer is of no worth to the department’.”
24. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
orders of dismissal passed by the disciplinary
authority, affirmed by the appellate authority; the
Central Administrative Tribunal and the High
Court are set aside. The appellant stands
reinstated.” (emphasis supplied)
42. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage
Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (supra) has held as under:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
25/36
“23. We have quoted in extenso as we are disposed to
think that the Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar
case (2012) 3 SCC 178 has, while dealing with the
charge of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour
unbecoming of a government servant, expressed
the aforestated view and further the learned
Judges have also opined that there may be
compelling circumstances which are beyond the
control of an employee. That apart, the facts in the
said case were different as the appellant on
certain occasions was prevented to sign the
attendance register and the absence was
intermittent. Quite apart from that, it has been
stated therein that it is obligatory on the part of
the disciplinary authority to come to a conclusion
that the absence is wilful. On an apposite
understanding of the judgment Krushnakant B.
Parmar case (2012) 3 SCC 178 we are of the
opinion that the view expressed in the said case
has to be restricted to the facts of the said case
regard being had to the rule position, the nature
of the charge levelled against the employee and
the material that had come on record during the
enquiry. It cannot be stated as an absolute
proposition in law that whenever there is a long
unauthorised absence, it is obligatory on the part
of the disciplinary authority to record a finding
that the said absence is wilful even if the
employee fails to show the compelling
circumstances to remain absent.
24. In this context, it is seemly to refer to certain other
authorities relating to unauthorised absence and
the view expressed by this Court. In State of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
26/36
Punjab v. P.L. Singla (2008) 8 SCC 469 the Court,
dealing with unauthorised absence, has stated
thus: (SCC p. 473, para 11)
“11. Unauthorised absence (or overstaying
leave), is an act of indiscipline. Whenever
there is an unauthorised absence by an
employee, two courses are open to the
employer. The first is to condone the
unauthorised absence by accepting the
explanation and sanctioning leave for the
period of the unauthorised absence in
which event the misconduct stood
condoned. The second is to treat the
unauthorised absence as a misconduct,
hold an enquiry and impose a punishment
for the misconduct.”
25. Again, while dealing with the concept of
punishment the Court ruled as follows: (P.L.
Singla case (2008) 8 SCC 469, SCC pp. 473-74,
para 14)
“14. Where the employee who is
unauthorisedly absent does not report back
to duty and offer any satisfactory
explanation, or where the explanation
offered by the employee is not satisfactory,
the employer will take recourse to
disciplinary action in regard to the
unauthorised absence. Such disciplinary
proceedings may lead to imposition of
punishment ranging from a major penalty
like dismissal or removal from service to a
minor penalty like withholding of
increments without cumulative effect. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
27/36
extent of penalty will depend upon the
nature of service, the position held by the
employee, the period of absence and the
cause/explanation for the absence.”
26. In Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 11
SCC 678, the appellant therein had remained
unauthorisedly absent for a period of six months
and further had also written threatening letters
and conducted some other acts of misconduct.
Eventually, the employee was visited with order of
dismissal and the High Court had given the stamp
of approval to the same. Commenting on the
conduct of the appellant the Court stated that he
was not justified in remaining unauthorisedly
absent from official duty for more than six months
because in the interest of discipline of any
institution or organisation such an approach and
attitude of the employee cannot be countenanced.
27. Thus, the unauthorised absence by an employee,
as a misconduct, cannot be put into a straitjacket
formula for imposition of punishment. It will
depend upon many a factor as has been laid down
in P.L. Singla [State of Punjab v. P.L. Singla,
(2008) 8 SCC 469 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 719].”
(emphasis supplied).
43. From the afore-quoted judgments, it is clear
that mere absence of a Government servant from his duty does
not ipso facto amounts to misconduct and the absence must be
shown to be willful and deliberate. In the present case, the
petitioner has amply established before the concerned
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
28/36
authorities by way of his applications accompanied with
supporting contemporaneous medical prescriptions that he is a
long-standing patient of psychosomatic disorder and has been
undergoing treatment at multiple hospitals including AIIMS,
New Delhi.
44. From the records, it is clear that the initial
casual leave was duly approved by the competent authority and
only thereafter, the petitioner had proceeded for leave. However,
the petitioner was thereafter, advised by his doctor for complete
bed rest and strict vigilance towards his health. Therefore, it is
clear that the petitioner has at every stage informed the
concerned authorities regarding his medical conditions with
supporting documents.
45. The documents submitted by the petitioner
along with his applications for grant of leave are of
unimpeachable character and have remained un-controverted by
the respondents. It is noted that the bona fide illness of the
petitioner is no longer in dispute since at paragraph no.28 of the
counter affidavit, the respondents themselves have stated that
they do not view that the petitioner is making pretence of his
illness.
46. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
29/36
a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhel
Singh (supra) wherein it has been held as under:-
“10. After giving our careful consideration to
the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submission made by the learned
counsel for the parties, we are of the view
that the Division Bench was wrong in
setting aside the order of reinstatement.
The Division Bench has accepted that the
inquiry stood vitiated by disallowing the
request of the appellant to summon the
rest of the five witnesses. For the said
reason, the Division Bench has not
interfered with such part of the finding
and order passed by the learned Single
Judge whereby the impugned order of
termination dated 17-10-1994 and the
appellate authority order dated 26-12-
1994 were quashed. The order of
termination being quashed by the High
Court, in absence of any observation and
grounds to refuse the reinstatement, the
appellant automatically stood reinstated.
Without reinstatement in service, the
question of further inquiry does not arise.
There was no occasion for the Division
Bench of the High Court to direct further
inquiry without reinstatement of the
appellant.
xxxx
12. From a plain reading of the charges we
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
30/36
find that the main allegation is absence
from duty from 11-12-1989 to 24-10-1990
(approximately 10½ months), for which
no prior permission was obtained from
the competent authority. In his reply, the
appellant has taken the plea that he was
seriously ill between 11-12-1989 and 24-
10-1990, which was beyond his control;
he never intended to contravene any of
the provisions of the service regulations.
He submitted the copies of medical
certificates issued by doctors in support
of his claim after rejoining the post. The
medical reports were submitted after
about 24 days. There was no allegation
that the appellant's unauthorised
absence from duty was wilful and
deliberate. The inquiry officer has also
not held that the appellant's absence
from duty was wilful and deliberate. It is
neither a case of the disciplinary
authority nor the inquiry officer that the
medical reports submitted by the
appellant were forged or fabricated or
obtained for any consideration though
he was not ill during the said period. In
absence of such evidence and finding, it
was not open to the inquiry officer or
the disciplinary authority to disbelieve
the medical certificates issued by the
doctors without any valid reason and on
the ground of 24 days' delay.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
31/36
13. In view of the observation made above,
the order passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court cannot be upheld. We,
accordingly, set aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 10-5-2012
passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court in M.G.B. Gramin Bank v. Chhel
Singh [M.G.B. Gramin Bank v. Chhel
Singh, Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.
850 of 2009, decided on 10-5-2012
(Raj)] and upheld the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dated 31-3-2009 in
Chhel Singh v. M.G.B. Gramin Bank
[Chhel Singh v. M.G.B. Gramin Bank,
WP (C) No. 1702 of 1995, order dated
31-3-2009 (Raj)] . The respondents are
directed to implement the direction and
order dated 31-3-2009 [Chhel Singh v.
M.G.B. Gramin Bank, WP (C) No. 1702
of 1995, order dated 31-3-2009 (Raj)]
issued by the learned Single Judge within
four weeks from the date of the receipt of
the copy of this judgment.”
(emphasis supplied)
47. Therefore, the absence of the petitioner from
the service in view of the contemporaneous medical
prescriptions submitted by him clearly establishes compelling
circumstances under which he was prevented from attending his
duties and cannot be characterized as willful absence. It is noted
that in the past also, the petitioner had availed the leave for a
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
32/36
long period which was duly regularized by the respondents.
Moreover, the insistence by the respondent authorities that the
petitioner must always apply for earned leave in a prescribed
format is not appealing to this Court since the petitioner was
admittedly under a serious medical condition and it is settled
law that procedural defects and irregularities which are curable
in nature should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or
cause and perpetuate injustice. Therefore, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the defect of submitting applications in
prescribed formats is at best a curable procedural irregularity
which in view of genuine illness of the petitioner should not be
an absolute obstacle.
48. It is further noted that the petitioner stands
suspended since 23.01.2025 i.e. for a period in excess of fifteen
months and such indefinite and unending suspension of the
petitioner is in teeth of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Promod Kumar, I.P.S. (supra). Further, the
administrative instructions contained in memo no.2763, dated
26.02.2014 issued by the General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar clearly stipulates the time for concluding
the disciplinary proceedings in a time-bound manner and
therefore the same cannot go on indefinitely. The Hon’ble
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
33/36
Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs.
Union of India reported as (2015) 7 SCC 291 has held as
under:-
“21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a
suspension order should not extend beyond three
months if within this period the memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet is not served on the
delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum
of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned
order must be passed for the extension of the
suspension. As in the case in hand, the
Government is free to transfer the person
concerned to any department in any of its offices
within or outside the State so as to sever any local
or personal contact that he may have and which
he may misuse for obstructing the investigation
against him. The Government may also prohibit
him from contacting any person, or handling
records and documents till the stage of his having
to prepare his defence. We think this will
adequately safeguard the universally recognised
principle of human dignity and the right to a
speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of
the Government in the prosecution. We recognise
that the previous Constitution Benches have been
reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of
delay, and to set time-limits to their duration.
However, the imposition of a limit on the period of
suspension has not been discussed in prior case
law, and would not be contrary to the interests of
justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central
Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
34/36
investigation, departmental proceedings are to be
held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the
stand adopted by us.”
49. The cumulative effect of the facts of the case
where an officer, whose bona fide illness is admitted and his
medical record stands unimpeachable, is that the disciplinary
proceeding should not have been initiated mechanically. Further,
his previous spell of similar leave was duly regularized by the
same authority and more importantly, his communications were
continuous and contemporaneous. Furthermore, his explanations
were neither formally rejected nor met with reasons. It is noted
that the suspension of the petitioner has extended well beyond
the threshold laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Pramod Kumar, IPS (supra) and Ajay Kumar
Choudhary (supra). Therefore, the foundation of wilfulness,
which is the sine qua non of misconduct under Rule 3 of the
Bihar Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1976, is
conspicuously absent. A defect of form in the leave application,
where the substance of the application is genuine illness duly
communicated with prescriptions, cannot, in law, be elevated
into a sustainable charge of indiscipline, dereliction and
unbecoming conduct.
50. For the foregoing reasons and discussions,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
35/36
this writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, the memo no.1396
dated 23.01.2025, whereby the petitioner has been suspended;
the memo of charge dated 27.12.2023 and the memo no.15354
dated 19.08.2025, whereby the disciplinary proceeding against
the petitioner has been initiated, are hereby quashed and set
aside. Consequently, the respondent authorities are directed to
accept the joining of the petitioner forthwith and the petitioner
shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with
law.
51. So far as the prayer of the petitioner made in
Interlocutory Application No.03 of 2025 is concerned, this
Court had vide order dated 07.10.2025 directed the respondent
-UPSC to consider his case for promotion in the meeting of the
selection committee. However, from perusal of the minutes of
the meeting of the selection committee, particularly at paragraph
no.5.6, it appears that the case of the petitioner for induction in
the I.A.S. cadre was not considered on account of imposition of
punishment.
52. In the interest of justice, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to consider the
case of the petitioner in the next meeting of the selection
committee for induction in the I.A.S. cadre afresh in accordance
Patna High Court CWJC No.2732 of 2025 dt.15-05-2026
36/36
with law including the Indian Administrative Service
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. However, it is
made clear that the aforesaid fresh consideration must be
accorded to the petitioner uninfluenced by the
penalties/punishments, which have been quashed and set aside
hereinabove.
53. Pending interlocutory applications shall
stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 18.03.2026
Uploading Date 19.05.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.