Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar Sudhanshu, Dy. S.P., Batch- 45thversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The impugned order is unsustainable as it combines major and minor punishments; the major punishment of withholding five increments is sustained, while the minor punishment of prohibition on promotion for five years is quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was disciplined for allegedly mishandling a supplementary investigation and issuing a No‑Objection Certificate that led to the de‑freezing of Rs 50 lakhs belonging to accused persons. He was charged, suspended and, after an inquiry, punished with withholding of five increments (a major penalty) and a five‑year prohibition on promotion (a minor penalty). The petitioner challenged the punishment, the inquiry report, multiple charge memos and the procedural fairness of the disciplinary process. The High Court examined the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. S.C. Parashar, which holds that major and minor penalties cannot be imposed together in a single order. Finding the impugned order to combine both penalties without justification, the Court upheld the major penalty but quashed the prohibition on promotion. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed in part, modifying the punishment.
Issues considered
- Whether a disciplinary authority can impose both major and minor punishments simultaneously in one order under the Bihar CCA Rules/CCS Rules.
- Whether the disciplinary proceedings complied with the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the issuance of two charge memos and alteration of the witness list.
- Whether the punishment order was passed after applying mind to the petitioner’s defence.
- Whether the minor punishment of prohibition on promotion should be set aside.
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- major penalty
- minor penalty
- simultaneous punishment
- natural justice
- memo of charge
- promotion prohibition
- increment withholding
- Bihar Police Service
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4443 of 2023
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Sudhanshu, Dy. S.P., Batch- 45th Son of Late Ramayan Ram
Permanent resident of Village- Rampur Kothi, Post- Bhawanpur Hatt, Police
Station- Bhawanpur Hatt, District- Siwan, 841408, At present Deputy
Superintendent of Police, under control of The Director General of Police,
Bihar, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Home, Government of Bihar, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna,
Bihar.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar,
Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Sardar
Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar.
4. The Director General of Police, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna,
Bihar.
5. The Additional Director General of Police Headquater, Sardar Patel Bhawan,
Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar.
6. The Additional Director General of Police (Legal Affairs), Sardar Patel
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar.
7. The Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Office of the Director
General of Police, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar.
8. The Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur.
9. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur.
10. The Conducting Officer cum Inquiring Officer, namely Mr. Vinay Kumar
(IPS) presently Inspector General of Police, I.G. (HQ).
11. The Presenting Officer namely Mr. Sunil Kumar, Dy. S.P., Bhagalpur
(Headquarter), Bhagalpur.
12. The then, Deputy Inspector General of Police, namely Mr. Vikas Vaibhav
(IPS), Bhagalpur.
13. The Nodal Officer (Bihar), HDFC Bank Ltd, Jardine House, 4 Clive Row,
Kolkata- 700001.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar No. 13, Advocate
Ms. Priti Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Ms. Suman Kumar Jha, A.C. to AAG-3
Patna High Court CWJC No.4443 of 2023 dt.13-01-2026
2/13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 13-01-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This application has been filed challenging
the punishment order dated 22.12.2022, by which the petitioner
has been visited with the punishment of withholding of five
increments with cumulative effect and prohibition on promotion
for five years from the due date of promotion. The petitioner has
also challenged the inquiry report dated 02.05.2022, by which
petitioner has been found guilty in the departmental proceeding
as well as the memo of charge dated 28.08.2019. The petitioner
has further challenged another purported charge memo dated
01.08.2019. The petitioner has also challenged the preliminary
inquiry report dated 26.02.2019 and the letter dated 05.08.2019,
by which additional relevant documents were recommended to
be added in the memo of charge.
3. By way of filing an interlocutory application
no.1 of 2025, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated
18.04.2023, by which the review petition filed by the petitioner
challenging the punishment order was rejected. The aforesaid
interlocutory application was allowed by a coordinate Bench of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4443 of 2023 dt.13-01-2026
3/13
this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025.
4. The brief facts, relevant for the present
petition, are that petitioner joined the Bihar Police Service as
Dy.S.P. after qualifying the 45th BPSC combined competitive
examination and was posted as Sub-Division Police Officer,
Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur wherein he was entrusted with the
supplementary investigation of Kahalgaon P.S. Case No.337 of
2018. For the present purpose, suffice it is to state that in the
aforesaid criminal case the allegation of overloading and illegal
mining were levelled against the accused persons therein and
during a raid conducted, several bank account passbooks, cash
and other articles were seized. The petitioner while conducting
the supplementary investigation submitted a “No Objection
Certificate” to the concerned trial court for de-freezing the bank
accounts of the accused person of Kahalgaon P.S. Case No. 337
of 2018. On the strength of such NOC, the accounts of the
accused persons were de-freezed.
5. The thrust of the allegation is that the
petitioner failed to take appropriate steps to confiscate the
illegal amount and on the other hand issued an NOC, which led
to the release of the aforesaid funds. On the allegation of such
irregularities, dereliction of duty and suspicious conduct, a
Patna High Court CWJC No.4443 of 2023 dt.13-01-2026
4/13
disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. On
26.02.2019, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the DIG,
Bhagalpur wherein the petitioner was found to have conducted
the supplementary investigation irregularly. Thereafter, the
Inspector General of Police (Headquarters) vide his letter dated
27.02.2019 recommended for the suspension of the petitioner.
According to the respondents, the Department of Home,
Government of Bihar, sought draft memo of charge against the
petitioner from the Director General of Police, Bihar vide its
letter dated 06.06.2019. On 01.07.2019, the DIG, Bhagalpur
sent his recommendation to the I.G., Headquarters for initiating
a disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. According to
the respondents, on 01.08.2019, the draft memo of charges was
sent to the Department of Home, Government of Bihar. In the
meanwhile, the I.G., Headquarters sent certain additional
relevant documents on 05.08.2019 for incorporating the same in
the aforesaid draft memo of charge.
6. On 28.08.2019, a show cause notice along
with memo of charge, list of witnesses and documents were
served upon the petitioner. Responding thereto, the petitioner
submitted his statement of defence on 09.09.2019. Finding the
statement of defence to be unsatisfactory, the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.4443 of 2023 dt.13-01-2026
5/13
suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding vide
order dated 18.09.2019 and thereafter, the disciplinary
proceeding was initiated against him. On 20.01.2020, the
petitioner filed his detailed representation.
7. In the impugned inquiry report dated
02.05.2022, petitioner was found guilty against charge nos.1 and
2 whereas in charge no.3, the petitioner was found partially
guilty. Considering the inquiry report, a show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner on 11.07.2022, to which the petitioner
filed his reply. Being dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner,
the Department of Home, Government of Bihar, vide its letter
dated 30.09.2022 sought advise from the Bihar Public Service
Commission on the proposed punishment, to which the BPSC
concurred vide its letter dated 23.11.2022. Finally, the impugned
order of punishment dated 22.12.2022 was issued by the
disciplinary authority whereby the punishment of withholding
of five increments with cumulative effect along with prohibition
on promotion for five years from the due date of promotion was
imposed upon the petitioner. Against the order of punishment,
the petitioner preferred a review, which came to be rejected vide
impugned order dated 18.04.2023.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.4443 of 2023 dt.13-01-2026
6/13
submits that the punishment of withholding of five increments
with cumulative effect is classified as ‘major punishment’
whereas, ‘prohibition on promotion for five years from due date’
is a minor punishment under Rule-14 of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005. It is therefore, submitted that such punishment is
unsustainable and is in teeth of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr.
vs. S.C. Parashar reported as (2006) 3 SCC 167 wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that both major and minor
punishment cannot be imposed simultaneously upon the
delinquent employee by the very same punishment order.
9. Adverting to the impugned order dated
22.12.2022, it has been argued by learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner that the aforesaid order suffers from non-
application of mind and it has been passed in the most
mechanical manner without considering the defence submitted
by the petitioner and pertinently without assigning any cogent
reason. Therefore, the impugned orders and the enquiry report
are unsustainable and are liable to the quashed.
10. Lastly, it has been submitted by learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, two
charge memos were served to the petitioner without assigning
Patna High Court CWJC No.4443 of 2023 dt.13-01-2026
7/13
reasons warranting issuance of second memo of charge. It is
categorically submitted that the first memo of charge dated
01.08.2019 in which list of witnesses included only two
witnesses, however, in the second memo of charge dated
28.08.2019, the list of witnesses was increased to three.
According to the learned Senior Counsel, this has caused serious
prejudice to the petitioner.
11. In this case, the respondents have filed their
counter affidavits stating therein that only one memo of charge
was issued to the petitioner as the first one was the draft memo
of charge and after receiving the letter from the I.G.,
Headquarters who had sent certain additional relevant
documents on 05.08.2019 for incorporating the same in the draft
memo of charge, the final memo of charge along with the list of
witnesses and documents was served upon the petitioner. Lastly,
the respondents have supported the impugned order of
punishment and the order passed in review and have submitted
that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and
therefore, this Court may not interfere with the same.
12. I have considered the submissions of the
parties and perused the materials on record.
13. From the perusal of the records of the case, it
Patna High Court CWJC No.4443 of 2023 dt.13-01-2026
8/13
appears that the petitioner was entrusted with the supplementary
investigation of Kahalgaon P.S. Case No.337 of 2018, which
was registered against the accused persons therein on the
allegation of overloading and illegal mining and during the raid,
several bank account passbooks, cash and other articles were
seized and the amount was frozen and the seized bank accounts
were exhibited as evidence. The main allegation against the
petitioner is of not conducting the aforesaid supplementary
investigation properly and of submitting a “No Objection
Certificate” to the concerned trial Court for de-freezing the bank
accounts of the accused persons therein without obtaining prior
permission/order from his superior officers and a copy of the
same has also been sent by him to the Branch Manager of the
concerned Bank. On the strength of the same, the bank accounts
were de-freezed and more than Rs.50,00,000/- were released
from the bank accounts of the accused persons. Thereafter, the
show-cause notice along with the memo of charge, list of
witnesses and documents were served upon the petitioner. Being
dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the petitioner was
suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding and the
disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. In the inquiry
report dated 02.05.2022, petitioner was found guilty against
Patna High Court CWJC No.4443 of 2023 dt.13-01-2026
9/13
charge nos.1 and 2 whereas in charge no.3, the petitioner was
found partially guilty. The disciplinary authority agreeing with
the enquiry report has issued second show-cause notice to the
petitioner, to which the petitioner replied. Being dissatisfied
with the reply of the petitioner, the punishment order dated
22.12.2022 was passed inflicting major and minor punishment
i.e. withholding of five increments with cumulative effect and
prohibition on promotion for five years from the due date of
promotion. Against the order of punishment, the petitioner
preferred a review petition unsuccessfully.
14. This Court finds substance in the submission
of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that both major and
minor punishment cannot be packaged into one and imposed
simultaneously by one order. It would be apposite to quote
relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of S.C. Parashar (supra), which read as
under:
“12. The penalty imposed upon the respondent
is an amalgam of minor penalty and
major penalty. The respondent has been
inflicted with three penalties: (1)
reduction to the minimum of the
timescale of pay for a period of three
years with cumulative effect; (2) loss of
seniority; and (3) recovery of 25% of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4443 of 2023 dt.13-01-2026
10/13
loss incurred by the Government to the
tune of Rs. 74,341.89. i.e. Rs 18,585.47
on account of damage to the Gypsy in 18
(eighteen) equal monthly installments.
Whereas reduction of timescale of pay
with cumulative effect is a major penalty
within the meaning of clause (v) of Rule
11 of the CCS Rules, loss of seniority and
recovery of amount would come within
the purview of minor penalty, as
envisaged by clauses (iii) and (iii)(a)
thereof. The disciplinary authority,
therefore, in our opinion acted illegally
and without jurisdiction in imposing
both minor and major penalties by the
same order. Such a course of action
could not have been taken in law.
13. However, there cannot be any doubt
whatsoever that the disciplinary
authority never intended to impose a
minor penalty. The concession of the
learned counsel appearing for the
appellant before the High Court was
apparently erroneous. It is now well
settled that wrong concession made by a
counsel before the court cannot bind the
parties when statutory provisions clearly
provide otherwise. (See Union of India v.
Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi [(2004) 3
SCC 628. The penalty imposed upon the
respondent, in our considered view,
therefore, should be kept confined to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4443 of 2023 dt.13-01-2026
11/13
reduction to the minimum of the
timescale of pay for a period of three
years with cumulative effect. The effect of
such a penalty has been considered by
this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma v.
Haryana SEB [1988 Supp SCC 669 in
the following terms: (SCC pp. 671-72,
para 6)
“6. We are unable to accept the above
contention. The penalty was
imposed on 15.4.1968 and, as a
result of which, he was deprived of
the monetary benefit of one
increment for one year only. The
penalty by way of stoppage of one
increment for one year was
without any future effect. In other
words, the appellant's increment
for one year was stopped and such
stoppage of increment will have
no effect whatsoever on his
seniority. Accordingly, the Board
acted illegally and most
arbitrarily in placing the juniors
of the appellant above him in the
seniority list and/or confirming
the appellant in the post with
effect from 1.12.1969, that is, long
after the date of confirmation of
the said Respondents 2 to 19. The
question of seniority has nothing
to do with the penalty that was
Patna High Court CWJC No.4443 of 2023 dt.13-01-2026
12/13
imposed upon the appellant. It is
apparent that for the same act of
misconduct, the appellant has
been punished twice, that is, first,
by the stoppage of one increment
for one year and, second, by
placing him below his juniors in
the seniority list.
14. The ratio of the said decision is
applicable to the facts of the present case
also.” (emphasis supplied).
15. In the present case also, the disciplinary
authority vide impugned order has imposed both major and
minor penalties together, which is impressible and unsustainable
in view of the afore-quoted judgment. Even, a perusal of the
concurrence given by the Bihar Public Service Commission on
the proposed punishment, it appears that though the
Commission has mentioned about the major and minor
punishment but has not given any reason for concurring with the
proposed punishment which is an amalgamation of both major
and minor punishment.
16. In view of the above, this Court has no
option but to hold that the impugned order of punishment is not
sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment
dated 22.12.2022, is modified to the extent that the major
punishment i.e. withholding of five increments with cumulative
Patna High Court CWJC No.4443 of 2023 dt.13-01-2026
13/13
effect shall be sustained in view of the gravity of charge against
the petitioner and the minor punishment i.e. prohibition on
promotion for five years from the due date is hereby quashed
and set aside.
17. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, this writ petition is allowed to the above extent.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 13.10.2025
Uploading Date 13.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…