Patna High Court
Raj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The termination order of 12 November 2015 and the appellate order of 20 February 2023 are set aside, and the disciplinary authority is directed to conduct a fresh inquiry under Rule 17.
Summary
The petitioner, Raj Kumar, a constable in the Bihar Police, challenged his termination dated 12 November 2015, alleging that no departmental inquiry was conducted. He sought reinstatement and parity with a similarly situated officer, Arvind Kumar Singh, whose termination had been set aside in CWJC No. 4515 of 2017. The State argued that the termination and the subsequent appellate order were lawful. The Court observed that the same procedural defect – the absence of a presenting officer and a proper inquiry under Rule 17 of the Service Rules – affected both cases and therefore parity required relief. Consequently, the Court set aside both the termination order and the appellate order and directed the disciplinary authority to conduct a fresh inquiry within six months, with any reinstatement or benefits to be decided thereafter. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the termination of a police constable without a departmental inquiry is legally valid.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as a similarly situated officer whose termination was set aside.
- Whether the appellate order confirming the termination can be set aside on the ground of procedural irregularity.
- Whether a fresh disciplinary proceeding must be conducted in accordance with Rule 17 of the Service Rules.
Subjects
- termination
- police service
- departmental inquiry
- parity
- reinstatement
- Service Rules
- Rule 17
- writ petition
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4147 of 2024
======================================================
Raj Kumar son of Rajendra Prasad Resident of Village Kamal Bigha, Post
Bilari, P.S. Katri Sarai District Nalanda PIN 805130
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief
Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police -cum-I.G. Police, Bihar, Patna
3. The I.G. of Police Magadh Zone, Gaya
4. The S.S.P. Gaya at Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mayanand Jha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Gaurav Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, GP-20
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-02-2026
Heard learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for
“…… for setting aside the order of
termination/discharge, vide Gaya District Order
No.2420/2015 as contained in Memo No. 3778 dated
12th November 2015 (Annexure-P-5) issued by the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya as well as
Appellate order contained in Memo No. 395 dated
20.02.2023 passed by the Inspector General of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4147 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
2/5
Police, Magadh Zone, Gaya (Annexure P8), on the
Appeal preferred by the petitioner whereby he
rejected the appeal against his termination from
service as a constable in Bihar Police and further to
direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in
service with all consequential benefits.”
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the termination of the petitioner was effected
without initiation of any departmental proceeding, vide Gaya
District Order No. 2420, as contained in Memo No. 3778 dated
12.11.2015 (as contained in Annexure P/5).
4. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner confines his
prayer to the extent that parity be maintained with a similarly
situated person, namely Arvind Kumar Singh, who had
challenged his order of termination by filing CWJC No. 1071 of
2023, wherein, vide order dated 08.05.2023, the orders passed
by the original as well as the appellate authorities were set aside,
subject to certain terms and conditions. Learned Senior Counsel
further submits that the case of the present petitioner is identical
to that of Arvind Kumar Singh (supra) and, therefore, the
petitioner is entitled to similar treatment.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that
a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, wherein
it has been stated that the orders passed by the original authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.4147 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
3/5
as well as the appellate authority were passed strictly in
accordance with law and do not call for any interference by this
Hon’ble Court. He, however, fairly submits that it is correct that
a similarly situated person had approached this Hon’ble Court
by filing CWJC No. 1071 of 2023, which was disposed of by a
conditional order.
6. In light of the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, it transpires to this Court that parity
deserves to be maintained with the present petitioner as well. It
further transpires to this Court that in the case of Arvind Kumar
Singh (supra), this Hon’ble Court was pleased to observe in
paragraphs 9 and 10 as under:—
10. In CWJC No. 4515 of 2017, having
considered the entire materials and submissions of
the parties, this Court allowed the writ application,
the operative part of the order reads as under:-
“25. In the nature of the submissions and
the materials present on record and there being an
admitted position that no Presenting Officer was
appointed, this Court sets aside the impugned order
of dismissal and the appellate order in all these
writ applications and directs the concerned
disciplinary authority to conduct the disciplinary
proceeding from the stage of inquiry afresh in
accordance with the procedures laid down under
Rule 17 of the Service Rules governing the
employment of these petitioners and take an
appropriate decision thereon within a period of
four months from the date of receipt/production of
the copy of this order. 26. Needless to say that in
Patna High Court CWJC No.4147 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
4/5
terms of the Hon’ble Constitution Bench judgment
in case of B. Karunakar (supra), the disciplinary
authority shall take an appropriate decision as
regards reinstatement for purpose of conducting the
disciplinary proceeding only. Other consequential
benefits, if any admissible to the petitioners would
depend upon the result of the disciplinary
proceeding. 27. These writ applications are allowed
to the extent indicated hereinabove.”
11. In the aforesaid view of the matter,
the impugned orders as contained in Annexures
‘P4’ and ‘P7’ are hereby set aside and the writ
application is allowed in terms of the order dated
10.04.2023 of this Court passed in CWJC No. 4515
of 2017 and other analogous matters.”
7. In view of the fact that both the present petitioner
and the said Arvind Kumar Singh were removed from service
by the same order, as contained in Memo No. 3778 dated
12.11.2015, this Court hereby sets aside the order dated 12th
November, 2015 as contained in Memo No. 3778 issued by the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya (Annexure P/5) and the
appellate order dated 20.02.2023 contained in Memo No. 395
passed by the Inspector General of Police, Magadh Zone, Gaya
(Annexure P/8) and directs the concerned authority to do the
needful in the light of the observations made in paragraph 10
hereinabove.
8. It is made clear that the departmental proceeding, if
initiated, shall be concluded within a period of six months from
today.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4147 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
5/5
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11/02/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…