Patna High Court
Indrajeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that under Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 the disciplinary authority must independently consider the enquiry officer’s report, and the use of a Technical Committee and the verbatim replication of its recommendations in the second show‑cause notice render both the notice and the subsequent punishment invalid.
Summary
The petitioner, a former Executive Engineer, challenged a 2021 order that withheld one annual increment, arguing that the disciplinary authority had relied on a Technical Committee’s recommendation rather than independently evaluating the enquiry officer’s report as required by Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The Court noted that the earlier 2019 judgment had quashed a similar punishment for the same reason and had allowed the department to restart proceedings from the second show‑cause stage. The petitioner contended that the second show‑cause notice dated 30‑July‑2019 was a verbatim copy of the Technical Committee’s recommendation, indicating no independent mind was exercised. The respondents argued that the notice, though similar, was not identical and that the disciplinary authority had acted lawfully. After examining the documents, the Court found the notice and the subsequent punishment to be invalid, set aside the 2021 order, and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the constitution of a Technical Committee to assess the enquiry officer’s findings is permissible under Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
- Whether the disciplinary authority exercised an independent mind in issuing the second show‑cause notice dated 30‑July‑2019.
- Whether the second show‑cause notice and the order of punishment dated 5‑August‑2021 are legally sustainable.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief by quashing the 2021 punishment order.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- departmental disciplinary proceedings
- Rule 18
- Bihar CCA Rules
- technical committee
- show cause notice
- increment withholding
- independent mind
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.407 of 2022
======================================================
Indrajeet Kumar Son of Late R.N. Ram resident of Jai Mahabir Colony,
Sandalpur, Road No. 5, Police Station Bahadurpur, District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Vishwesharaiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Vishwesharaiya
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amit Prakash, GP-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 22-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief :-
“1. That this writ application is filed
for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashment of notification no.3883 (s) dated
05.08.2021 read with notification memo no.3884
(s) dated 06.08.2021 issued over the signature of
the Joint Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Bihar, Patna whereby punishment
of withholding of one increment with cumulative
effect has been inflicted upon the petitioner on
the basis of the recommendation of Technical
Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2022 dt.22-06-2026
2/10
Committee dated 11.07.2014 by the Disciplinary
authority without applying its independent mind
in differing with the findings of the enquiry
Officer.
A copy of notification
dated 05.08.2021 is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure-P1 to this
writ application.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on the
charges relating to the period 2006-07 when the petitioner was
posted as Executive Engineer, Road Division, Samastipur, the
petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding
which ended in an order of punishment being passed against
him of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative
effect. The said order of punishment dated 15.5.2015 was
challenged by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. no. 803 of 2016.
4. By order dated 4.1.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. no.
803 of 2016, taking into consideration that contrary to the
provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Bihar Government
Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005
(‘CCA Rules’ in short) and that the consideration of the enquiry
report was not done by the Disciplinary Authority but by a
Technical Committee which was not contemplated as per Rule
18 of the CCA Rules, the writ application was allowed by this
Court quashing both the second show cause notice dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2022 dt.22-06-2026
3/10
9.12.2014 as also the consequential order of punishment dated
15.5.2015. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to
proceed against the petitioner from the stage of second show
cause by the Disciplinary Authority in accordance with law.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that pursuant to the leave granted by order dated 4.1.2019
passed by this Court, the petitioner was served with a second
show cause notice dated 30.7.2019 (Annexure-P/9) to which the
petitioner replied. The respondents came out with the order
dated 5.8.2021 under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Road
Construction Department, Bihar, Patna, inflicting the
punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with
cumulative effect. It is against this order that the petitioner has
preferred the instant writ application.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
while allowing C.W.J.C. no. 803 of 2016 by its order dated
4.1.2019, this Court had specifically observed that in accepting
the report/recommendation of the Technical Committee, there
was no independent disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority
with the findings of the Enquiry Officer by assigning any
independent reason on the basis of the evidence/material
brought on record in the proceedings. It was in such
Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2022 dt.22-06-2026
4/10
circumstances that the matter had been remanded back to the
Disciplinary Authority to proceed from the stage of the second
show cause. However, on remand, as would be evident from the
contents of the second show cause notice dated 30.7.2019 and
more particularly paragraph nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) thereof, it
would transpire that the same are identical and verbatim copies
of the recommendations of the Technical Committee (Annexure-
P/3) which was the basis for setting aside the second show cause
notice by this Court. It is thus submitted that once again, on the
face of the record, there has been no independent application of
mind by the Disciplinary Authority. As such the second show
cause notice as also the subsequent order of punishment passed
by the respondents cannot be sustained and both be set aside.
7. The application is opposed by learned counsel for
the respondents. It is submitted that so far as the earlier order of
punishment is concerned, though the same was set aside by
order dated 4.1.2019 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 803 of
2016, however liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed
against the petitioner from the stage of the second show cause
notice. It is submitted that in compliance thereof, a second show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.7.2019 and after
considering the reply filed by the petitioner that the order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2022 dt.22-06-2026
5/10
punishment has been passed against him. No procedural
irregularity has been pointed out by the petitioner. So far as the
contention of the petitioner with respect to the similarity in the
recommendation of the Technical Committee and the contents
of the second show cause notice dated 30.7.2019 is concerned,
learned counsel for the respondents submits that facts being
identical relating to the same event, the contents may be said to
be similar but are not verbatim copies. The Disciplinary
Authority applied his independent mind and has issued the
second show cause notice in accordance with law. The petitioner
has not made out a case for interference in the order of
punishment by this Court. There is no merit in the writ
application and the same be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
9. Bereft of unnecessary details, it may be mentioned
here that on an earlier occasion, an order of punishment
contained in memo no.4235(s) dated 15.5.2015 was passed by
the respondents against the petitioner withholding two annual
increments with cumulative effect. The said order came to be
challenged by the petitioner in CWJC no.803 of 2016. The writ
application was allowed by order dated 4.1.2019 and both the
Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2022 dt.22-06-2026
6/10
second show cause notice dated 9.12.2014 as well as the
consequential order of punishment dated 15.5.2015 were set
aside.
10. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce
relevant portions of the order dated 4.1.2019 passed in CWJC
no.803 of 2016 which would show the ground on which the said
writ application was allowed. The same is quoted herein below:
“16. As regards other submission advanced by
the petitioner’s counsel regarding validity of the
Technical Committee to appreciate the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, this Court would observe that no
response has been given by the State to the Court’s
specific query raised in the earlier order dated 16.1.2018.
The Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 provides the procedure for
conducting departmental proceedings. Nowhere does it
conceive of constitution of any Technical Committee to
appreciate the findings of the Enquiry Officer. As is
manifest from the file notings contained in Annexure 12,
even the departmental minister criticized the constitution
of Technical Committee to appreciate the findings of the
Enquiry Officer. That apart it is a trite law based on the
provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005 that consideration of the Enquiry Officer has to be
done by the Disciplinary Authority and not by any
Technical Committee. Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005 provides for action on the enquiry report.
Discretion to agree or disagree with the findings of the
Enquiry is with the Disciplinary Authority. But the
discretion as to be exercised in the manner prescribed
Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2022 dt.22-06-2026
7/10
under Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
Constitution of Technical Committee as has been done in
the instant case is not contemplated in Rule 18 of the
Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. There is no independent
disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer by assigning any
independent reason on basis of evidence/material brought
on record in the proceedings on preponderance of
probability. In the circumstances, the second show cause
notice dated 9.12.2014 issued by the Disciplinary
Authority communicating disagreement of the Technical
Committee is not sustainable as the same is apart from
being based on extraneous consideration, also contrary
to the procedure prescribed under Rule 18 of the Bihar
CCA Rules, 2005. That being so, this Court would quash
the second show cause notice dated 9.12.2014 as well as
consequential order of punishment dated 15.5.2015
arising out of and as a result of such illegal procedure.
17. In view of quashing of the second show
cause dated 9.12.2014 and the order of punishment dated
15.5.2015 this Court would observe that the petitioner is
entitled to be reinstated in service forthwith along with
all consequential benefits.
18. This order however will not preclude the
respondent authorities from proceeding against the
petitioner from the stage of second show cause by the
Disciplinary Authority, in accordance with law.
19. The writ petition is allowed in the
aforesaid terms.”
11. On perusal of the above quoted portion of the
order dated 4.1.2019, it would transpire that this Court had
Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2022 dt.22-06-2026
8/10
taken note of the fact that after submission of the enquiry report,
instead of the disciplinary authority considering the report of the
enquiry officer, contrary to Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, a
technical committee was constituted to appreciate the finding of
the enquiry officer. This procedure being unknown to and in
violation of the provisions contained in Rule 18 of the CCA
Rules, the second show cause notice as also the order of
punishment were both set aside and the writ application was
allowed, however with liberty to the respondents to proceed
against the petitioner from the stage of the second show cause
notice by the disciplinary authority.
12. It is pursuant to the liberty granted in the order
dated 4.1.2019 by this Court that the petitioner was again served
with the second show cause notice dated 30.7.2019 by the
disciplinary authority/Director, Road Construction Department,
Government of Bihar asking the petitioner to file his reply to the
same within 15 days.
13. It may be mentioned here that the notice dated
30.7.2019 gives four grounds mentioned as (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)
on which the disciplinary authority differs with the report of the
enquiry officer.
14. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2022 dt.22-06-2026
9/10
as is also evident from the order dated 4.1.2019, a technical
committee had been constituted which had looked into the
findings/report of the enquiry officer. The said recommendation
of the technical committee is available on record and more
particularly contained in column no.5 of the report of the
technical committee at Annexure P/3 to the writ application.
15. On perusal of the material on record, this Court
finds that the contents of the second show cause notice dated
30.7.2019 issued to the petitioner as contained in (i) to (iv)
therein and the recommendation of the technical committee as
contained in Annexure P/3 are identical and verbatim copy of
each other. It was on this ground, that there is no provision for
constitution of a technical committee to appreciate the contents
of the enquiry officer and which had to be done independently
by the disciplinary authority in view of the provisions contained
in Rule 18 of the CCA Rules that the writ application (CWJC
no.803 of 2016) had been allowed. The respondents have
repeated the same error herein.
16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case
as stated herein above, neither the second show cause notice
dated 30.7.2019 nor the order of punishment dated 5.8.2021
(Annexure P/1) can be sustained.
Patna High Court CWJC No.407 of 2022 dt.22-06-2026
10/10
17. The order of punishment contained in notification
no. 3883(s) Patna dated 5.8.2021 issued under the signature of
the Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar Patna
is hereby set aside.
18. The writ application is allowed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/Saurav
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 14.05.2026
Uploading Date 22.06.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.