Patna High Court
Kartik Kumar JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court set aside both the dismissal order and the appellate order, directing a fresh departmental enquiry in compliance with the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
Summary
The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk, was suspended and later dismissed by the disciplinary authority without being provided a list of witnesses or the documents relied upon, violating Rules 17(3), 17(4), 17(11)(ii) and 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. He filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to set aside the dismissal order and the subsequent appellate order, arguing breach of natural justice and denial of the right to cross‑examine witnesses. The High Court held that the departmental enquiry was vitiated because no oral evidence was examined and the documentary evidence was not proved through witnesses, contravening established Supreme Court precedents. It also found that the appellate authority had rejected the appeal mechanically without addressing the merits. Consequently, the court set aside both the dismissal order dated 12‑09‑2016 and the appellate order dated 18‑12‑2019, remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority to restart the proceedings within six months. The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority violated the procedural safeguards under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the appellate authority erred by rejecting the appeal without considering the grounds on merits.
- Whether departmental enquiries must examine oral evidence and prove documentary evidence through witness testimony.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and monetary benefits following the setting aside of the orders.
Subjects
- natural justice
- disciplinary proceedings
- departmental enquiry
- Bihar CCA Rules 2005
- dismissal
- reinstatement
- procedural fairness
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2997 of 2021
======================================================
Kartik Kumar Jha Son of Late Shiv Narayan Jha Resident of Village-
Mohanpur, P.S.-Bakhtiyarpur District-Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural
Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa,
3. The District Magistrate, Saharsa.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Simri Bhakhtiyarpur, District-Saharsa.
5. The Circle Officer, Salkhua, District-Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Pramod Mishra, Rohit Ranjan, Sumit Kr,
Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Navnit Kr, AC to GP XVIII
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:
“i) A writ in the nature of certiorari
setting aside the order bearing Memo No. 1160
dated 12.09.2016 passed by Disciplinary
Authority (Respondent No. 3), whereby and
where under in contemplation of a disciplinary
proceeding, petitioner has been inflicted
punishment of dismissal from service without
following the procedures prescribed under Bihar
C. C. A. Rules, 2005 as also without examining
any oral evidence presuming the alleged charges
proved in gross violation of principle of natural
justice.
ii) For setting aside the impugned order
passed by appellate authority bearing Memo No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2997 of 2021 dt.27-02-2026
2/10
1536 dated 18.12.2019 passed by Respondent
Divisional Commissioner (Respondent No. 2),
whereby and where under appeal case No
115/2016 has been rejected without considering
the grounds raised in appeal on merits rather in
mechanical manner without applying his judicial
mind as the appellate order is itself non-speaking
which is not proper in the eye of law.
iii) To reinstate the petitioner in service
with all consequential monetary benefits.
iv) And/or any other relief or reliefs for
which the petitioner is found entitled to in the
facts and circumstances of this case.”
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition
is that while the petitioner was posted as Upper Division Clerk
-cum- Anchal Nazir in Block – Salkhua, Saharsa in the year 2013,
on the basis of the report submitted by the Circle Officer, Salkhua,
the petitioner was put under suspension vide order contained in
Memo No. 1803 dated 10.10.2013 issued under the signature of
the District Magistrate, Saharsa. Subsequently Memo of Charge
was served upon the petitioner vide Letter No. 2086 – 2 dated
20.09.2019 issued under the signature of Sub-Divisional Officer,
Simri Bakhtiyarpur whereby certain charges were levelled against
the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
along with the Memo of Charge, no list of witnesses were given
which is in complete violation of the provisions contained in Rule
17 (3) and (4) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2997 of 2021 dt.27-02-2026
3/10
Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. Accordingly, the petitioner was
issued show cause notice and he submitted his reply before the
Disciplinary Authority, wherein he requested for providing the
documents mentioned in Prapatra KA, but the same was never
provided to the petitioner. The petitioner, apart from other
documents, also asked for certain documents, to give his reply to
the show cause notice issued to him, but the same was not supplied
to him. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice,
issued to him on 26.12.2014. The Enquiry Officer proceeded with
the departmental enquiry wherein the petitioner duly participated,
but no witnesses were examined on behalf of the Presenting
Officer to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner
and the documents, which the petitioner was repeatedly asking for,
were not provided to the petitioner. After enquiry, the Enquiry
Offier submitted his report before the Disciplinary Authority and
pursuant thereto, the petitioner was issued second show cause
notice by the Disciplinary Authority. In compliance thereof, the
petitioner filed his reply before the Disciplinary Authority, but the
Disciplinary Authority, without even considering the second show
cause reply filed by the petitioner, wherein he raised a grievance
that despite repeatedly asking for the documents relied upon by the
Presenting Officer and which were mentioned in the Memo of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2997 of 2021 dt.27-02-2026
4/10
Charge, the same were never provided to the petitioner, therefore,
in absence of the same, he could not file a detailed reply,
proceeded to pass the impugned order of punishment dismissing
the petitioner from service from the date of issuance of the order
impugned. Being aggrieved with the order of punishment dated
12.09.2016, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the
Appellate Authority, i. e. the Commissioner, Koshi Division,
Saharsa, which was numbered as Service Appeal No. 115 of 2016.
The appeal preferred by the petitioner was finally heard on
04.12.2019 whereby the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa,
without considering the defence taken by the petitioner in his
Memo of Appeal, proceeded to reject the appeal filed by the
petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
entire departmental proceeding was conducted in complete
violation of the Rules 17 (3) (4), (11) (ii) and 17 (14) of the Bihar
CCA Rules 2005, since along with the Memo of Charge, no list of
witnesses were provided and in addition thereto, the documents,
which have been mentioned along with Prapatra KA, were never
provided to the petitioner. Further, since the Department did not
give the list of witnesses, the petitioner was denied an opportunity
to cross examine them, to rebut the charges, which were levelled
Patna High Court CWJC No.2997 of 2021 dt.27-02-2026
5/10
against him and the documents which were relied upon by the
prosecution, were not proved, in absence of any witness to prove
the same.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and
relies on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 (State of UP & Others
-Versus- Saroj Kumar Sinha). In Paragraphs No. 26 to 28, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“26. The first inquiry report is vitiated also on
the ground that the inquiry officers failed to fix
any date for the appearance of the respondent to
answer the charges. Rule 7(x) clearly provides as
under:
“7. (x) Where the charged government servant
does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or
at any stage of the proceeding in spite of the
service of the notice on him or having knowledge
of the date, the inquiry officer shall proceed with
the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the inquiry
officer shall record the statement of witnesses
mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the
charged government servant.”
27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule
shows that when the respondent had failed to
submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was
incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date
for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a
case when the government servant despite notice
of the date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry
officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte.
Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the
inquiry officer to record the statement of
witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since
the government servant is absent, he would
Patna High Court CWJC No.2997 of 2021 dt.27-02-2026
6/10
clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of
the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to
establish the charges the Department is required to
produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry
officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the
inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as
a judge.
28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial
authority is in the position of an independent
adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a
representative of the department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His function is to examine
the evidence presented by the Department, even in
the absence of the delinquent official to see as to
whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved. In the present
case the aforesaid procedure has not been
observed. Since no oral evidence has been
examined the documents have not been proved,
and could not have been taken into consideration
to conclude that the charges have been proved
against the respondents.”
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to
and relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported
in (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi -Versus- Punjab National
Bank & Others) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Paragraph No. 14 has held as follows:
“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is
a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer
performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges
levelled 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.2997 of 2021 dt.27-02-2026
7/10
treated to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to prove
the said documents. The management witnesses
merely tendered the documents 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.”
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a
judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court dated
06.08.2024 passed in L.P.A. No. 389 of 2024 (Ram Lagan Ram
-Versus- The State of Bihar & Others) wherein in paragraphs No.
16 and 17, the Hon’ble Division Bench has held as follows:
“16. We also notice the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh
Negi -Versus- Punjab National Bank & Others
reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, which
categorically held that mere production of
documents is not proof even in a departmental
enquiry and the contents of documentary evidence
will have to be proved by examining witnesses. It
was categorically held that an FIR in itself is not
evidence without actual proof of facts stated
therein. The Department could have examined
the witnesses, as we noticed; the complainant,
members of the trap team or even the independent
witnesses to the trap, to prove the facts as stated in
the FIR.
17. We find absolutely no reason to
sustain the enquiry, the punishment imposed on
the basis of such enquiry; in which there was
absolutely no material produced as valid evidence.
The order of dismissal and the order rejecting the
appeal also hence, has to be set aside. We find the
judgment of the learned Single Judge also to be
flawed for having not correctly appreciated the
law, on the facts coming out in the above case.
We set aside the judgment of the learned Single
Patna High Court CWJC No.2997 of 2021 dt.27-02-2026
8/10
Judge and also find the enquiry to be not in
accordance with law.”
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits
that the departmental proceeding was conducted in accordance
with law and the petitioner was given due opportunity to
participate in the said departmental proceeding. Documents were
produced and the petitioner deliberately kept on asking for non-
relevant documents to delay the departmental proceedings, since
the documents which were asked for by the petitioner, were not
relevant for the enquiry. The learned counsel for the State further
submits that in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was
given due opportunity and the Enquiry Officer, after a full fledged
departmental enquiry, submitted his report and based on the said
enquiry report, the petitioner was issued second show cause notice.
The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice
and the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the reply
submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to pass the order of
punishment since the charges levelled against the petitioner were
grave in nature. The learned counsel for the State further submits
that even the Appellate Authority, before passing the order dated
04.12.2019, considered the points taken by the petitioner in his
Memo of Appeal and then finding no merit in the appeal, rejected
the same.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2997 of 2021 dt.27-02-2026
9/10
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the records, this Court finds that while issuing
Memo of Charge to the petitioner, the authorities concerned gave a
go bye to the provisions contained in Rule 17 (3) and (4) of the
Bihar CCA Rules 2005, since no list of witnesses on whom the
Department intended to rely during course of departmental enquiry
was given with the Memo of Charge, which denied an opportunity
to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses to rebut the
charges levelled against him. Further, in absence of the witnesses,
the documents, which were relied during enquiry, were not proved.
The authorities also did not adhere to the provisions contained in
Rule 17 (14) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005, since on the date fixed
for enquiry, no oral or documentary evidence, by which the
Articles of Charges were proposed to be proved, were
produced/adduced, by the Presenting Officer and even the
documents which were relied upon by the Presenting Officer were
not provided to the petitioner thereby the petitioner was denied an
opportunity to rebut the charges, by referring to the documents and
the documents were not proved by the witnesses, which resulted in
denial of opportunity to the petitioner, to examine the witnesses, to
rebut the charges, which were levelled by the authorities
concerned. Further, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2997 of 2021 dt.27-02-2026
10/10
produce defence witnesses in support of his defence, which is also
in the teeth of the provisions contained in the Bihar CCA Rules
2005.
10. Accordingly, the order contained in Memo No. 1160
dated 12.09.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Saharsa and
the order dated 04.12.2019 contained in Memo No 1536 dated
18.12.2019 passed in Service Appeal No 115 of 2016 by the
Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa, deserve to be set aside
and are, accordingly, set aside.
11. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary
Authority to proceed afresh from the defective stage, i. e. from
issuance of Memo of Charge, if so desired and to conclude the
departmental proceeding within a period of six months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
12. The writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned
terms.
13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.03.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…