Patna High Court
Anuj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter for fresh proceedings with due compliance of the show‑cause requirement.
Summary
The petitioner, Anuj Kumar, challenged his dismissal from service as Executive Assistant in the CDPO office, alleging that the disciplinary authority punished him on three additional charges without issuing a show‑cause notice, thereby violating natural justice. He contended that the payment of Rs 40,000 to a block coordinator was made after the amount had already been deposited in the government account, and that the video evidence of alleged bribery was either fake or unsubstantiated. The State argued that the petitioner had taken a bribe of Rs 2,500, demanded illegal gratification of Rs 55,000, and deliberately misused the CFMS system, justifying the dismissal. The High Court examined whether the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner had lawfully exercised their powers and found that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to respond to the three extra charges. Consequently, the Court set aside both the District Magistrate’s order dated 16‑09‑2021 and the Divisional Commissioner’s order dated 13‑12‑2022, and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to restart the proceedings with a proper show‑cause notice. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary authority can impose punishment on additional charges without affording a show‑cause notice, in violation of natural justice.
- Whether the appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner upholding the dismissal is liable to be set aside on procedural grounds.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement pending fresh disciplinary proceedings.
Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Service Termination
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Natural Justice
- Show Cause Notice
- Writ Petition
- Certiorari
- Corruption
- CFMS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2927 of 2023
======================================================
Anuj Kumar son of Wakil Kumar, resident of Village- Haripur Budhwa, P.S.
Alauli, District- Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Patna.
2. The Director, I.C.D.S., Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger.
4. The District Magistrate, Khagaria.
5. That District Programme Officer, Khagaria.
6. The Child Development Project Officer, Gogri, Khagaria.
7. Ful Kumari, Anganwari Sevika, Ward No. 4, Pasraha, Gogri, Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.K. Mandal, SC-3
: Mr. Arjun Mandal, AC to SC-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“i. For issuance of an appropriate
writ/s, order/s, Direction/s in the
nature of certiorari for quashing
order dated 13.12.2022 passed by
the Divisional Commissioner,
Respondent no. 3 in Service
Appeal No. 53/2020-21 whereby
and under he was pleased to reject
the appeal filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 16.09.2021
passed by the District Magistrate,
Khagaria whereby and under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2927 of 2023 dt.11-02-2026
2/9
petitioner has been dismissed from
service while working as Executive
Assistant, CDPO Office, Gogri.
ii. For issuance of an appropriate
writ/s, order/s, Direction/s in the
nature of certiorari for quashing
impugned order contained in
Memo No. 632 dated 16.09.2021
whereby and under the District
Magistrate, Khagaria has been
pleased to dismissed the petitioner
from service as Executive
Assistant, in CDPO Office, Gogri
on the charges leveled against him
in the charge memo finding that
there is deviation of Government
Fund made by the petitioner under
CFMA System.
iii. For issuance of an appropriate
writ/s, order/s, Direction/s to the
respondents to reinstate the
petitioner from the date when he
has been dismissed from service
while working as Executive
Assistant, CDPO Office, Gogri,
Khagaria.”
3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as
Executive Assistant in the office of the CDPO, Gogri, a
complaint was made against the petitioner for making payment
of Rs. 40,000/-, in excess to the entitlement to one Amit Kumar,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2927 of 2023 dt.11-02-2026
3/9
Block Co-ordinator. The charge memo was handed over to the
petitioner vide letter no. 484 dated 03.09.2021 issued under the
signature of the CDPO, Gogri wherein the petitioner was asked
to submit his reply that under what circumstances he has made
payment of Rs. 40,000/- to Amit Kumar, Block Co-ordinator
which amounts to embezzlement of fund. The petitioner
submitted his reply on 06.09.2021 wherein he gave details and
explained the reasons under which the said payments were
made. By the impugned order contained in Memo No. 632-
3/25/21-ICDS dated 16.09.2021 issued under the signature of
the District Magistrate, Khagaria, the petitioner has been
relieved from the services and his employment was terminated.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that although the petitioner was issued Charge
Memo dated 03.09.2021 for another charge but the disciplinary
authority while terminating the petitioner proceeded to consider
three additional charges and finally on the basis of said charges,
for which no opportunity to submit show cause was ever issued
to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed.
5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that in his pleading in the writ petition in paragraph no.
7, he has specifically mentioned that the charges which have
Patna High Court CWJC No.2927 of 2023 dt.11-02-2026
4/9
been levelled against the petitioner i.e. three new charges in the
order impugned passed by the Collector, which he found to be
sufficient for awarding punishment was never served upon him
and as such he was unaware of the three charges mentioned in
the impugned order dated 16.09.2021.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that even though no opportunity was given to the
petitioner to file his reply to the three additional charges which
the District Magistrate has mentioned in the order impugned, the
said Fool Kumari who had alleged that Rs. 55,000/- was asked
for by the petitioner in lieu of payment of her remuneration is
incorrect since along with her complaint, she had filed an
affidavit wherein she has stated that the said amount was being
asked for by the petitioner for her appointment. With regard to
the viral video in question, the petitioner submits that with
regard to the said viral video, an enquiry was conducted by the
District Programme Officer, Khagaria and vide letter no. 36
dated 16.01.2020, he found the same to be fake video.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that being aggrieved with the order of punishment dated
16.09.2021, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate
authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Munger wherein he
Patna High Court CWJC No.2927 of 2023 dt.11-02-2026
5/9
gave his explanation to all the three additional charges
mentioned in the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 passed by
the District Magistrate, Khagaria, but the appellate authority by
his order dated 13.12.2021 passed in Service Appeal No. 53 of
2021 proceeded to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that even before issuance of the show cause notice
dated 03.09.2021 for excess payment of Rs. 40,000/- to Amit
Kumar, the C.D.P.O., Gogri vide letter no. 483 dated 03.09.2021
directed the said Amit Kumar, Block Co-ordinator to deposit the
said amount in the Government account of the C.D.P.O., Gogri.
He further submits that before issuance of the said letter to Amit
Kumar and the memo of charge to the petitioner on 03.09.2021,
the said amount to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- was already
deposited by Amit Kumar through treasury challan, therefore
there is no embezzlement of the fund by the petitioner.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State
submits that the petitioner’s act of taking bribe to the tune of Rs.
2,500/- was caught on video and a written complaint had been
received from an Aanganwadi worker regarding petitioner’s act
of demanding illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 55,000/- for
release of her salary and these incriminating materials, ipso
Patna High Court CWJC No.2927 of 2023 dt.11-02-2026
6/9
facto, speaks volume about the petitioner's gross misconduct
warranting punishment for the same.
10. The learned counsel for the State further
submits that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is
a reasoned order and the same has been passed after taking into
consideration the contentions put forward by the petitioner as
well as the report of the District Magistrate, Khagaria. It is well
established that after perusal of the evidence that the petitioner
was a Maker in CFMS system and it is also an admitted fact that
the petitioner indulged in deliberate and mala fide financial
irregularities. The petitioner had also concealed the role of
Maker before the Divisional Commissioner, which shows that
he has not come with clean hands.
11. The learned counsel for the State further
submits that in reply to paragraph no.7 of the writ petition, he
has specifically denied the same and it has been stated that the
three other allegations outlined in the order passed by the
District Magistrate relates to past instances, as preface to
dealing with original charge of deviation of Government fund to
the tune of Rs. 40,000/-, of misconduct on the part of the
petitioner and these did not constitute new charges based upon
which the impugned order was passed by the District
Patna High Court CWJC No.2927 of 2023 dt.11-02-2026
7/9
Magistrate, Khagaria. In other words, the impugned order has
been passed by the District Magistrate, Khagaria after
considering the charge no. 7(i) only and charge no. 7(ii), (iii)
and (iv) of paragraph no.7 to the writ petition does not become
causa causans but remains chiefly a prologue of the said
impugned order.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his
reply submits that no documentary evidence has been produced
and proved, so far the video which is considered as evidence is
concerned and so far the statement made in paragraph no.7 of
the counter affidavit under reply is concerned, those have not
been denied by the State in the emphatic way and by a corollary
it would be deemed that the State Authorities have accepted the
contention of the petitioner.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that although action has been taken against the
petitioner based on three new charges and it has been stated that
the petitioner was Maker in the CFMS system, but no action has
been taken against the checker and approver. It has further been
submitted that the oral request made by the said Amit Kumar,
the petitioner processed the file and sent the same for approval
of the C.D.P.O., Gogri and upon her approval, the said payment
Patna High Court CWJC No.2927 of 2023 dt.11-02-2026
8/9
of Rs. 40,000/- was made, therefore it cannot be said that the
petitioner was instrumental in making payment, rather the same
was paid to Amit Kumar after approval of the competent
authority.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the records, I find that the petitioner was
asked to submit his reply with regard to only one charge i.e.
payment of Rs. 40,000/- to one Amit Kumar, Block Co-
ordinator, in excess to his entitlement and for which he
submitted his show cause reply, but the disciplinary authority by
the order impugned contained in Memo No. 632-3/25/21-ICDS
dated 16.09.2021 proceeded to award punishment to the
petitioner on three additional charges, for which no opportunity
to file show cause was given to the petitioner at any time. The
respondent-State has not brought on record any document to
suggest that before passing the final order on three additional
charges, the petitioner was given an opportunity to file his show
cause reply to rebut the same. The District Magistrate, Khagaria
proceeded to pass the impugned order on the three new charges
which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner and the
appellate authority without considering the averments made by
the petitioner in the memo of appeal, proceeded to reject the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2927 of 2023 dt.11-02-2026
9/9
Service Appeal No. 53 of 2021 filed by the petitioner, by the
impugned order dated 13.12.2022.
15. Accordingly, the order impugned contained in
Memo No. 632-3/25/21-ICDS dated 16.09.2021 passed by the
District Magistrate, Khagaria and order dated 13.12.2022 passed
by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger in
Service Appeal No. 53 of 2021 deserve to be set aside and are
accordingly set aside.
16. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary
authority i.e the District Magistrate, Khagaria to proceed afresh
from the stage of giving show cause notice to the petitioner for
the charges mentioned in the impugned order dated 16.09.2021
and proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so desires.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the
aforementioned terms.
18. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.