Patna High Court
Saroj Kumar RoiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The punishment order and the order rejecting the appeal are set aside as they are not sustainable due to lack of evidence.
Summary
The petitioner, a clerk‑cum‑deputy superintendent in a Bihar jail, was charged in a departmental proceeding after a prisoner’s suicide. The inquiry report relied on no witness testimony or documentary evidence, yet concluded that part of the charge was proved and imposed a censure and two years’ salary increments were withheld. The petitioner appealed, but the appeal was rejected and the punishment order upheld. The High Court examined whether the departmental inquiry complied with the principles of natural justice and the requirement of evidential support, citing Roop Singh Negi and other Supreme Court precedents. Finding the inquiry report devoid of any evidence, the Court held that both the punishment order and the order rejecting the appeal were unsustainable and set them aside, granting the writ relief sought by the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice and required evidential standards.
- Whether the punishment order (censure and salary deduction) can be sustained in the absence of any proven evidence.
- Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's appeal can be upheld despite alleged delay and laches.
Subjects
- departmental inquiry
- disciplinary action
- lack of evidence
- natural justice
- quashing order
- salary deduction
- censure
- judicial review
- departmental proceedings
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.467 of 2022
======================================================
Saroj Kumar Roi Son of Late Krishna Kumar Ray Resident of Bhojpur, P.s.-
Tarabari, District- Araria, then Posted as a Clerk-cum- Deputy
Superintendent, Mandal Kara (Jail), Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department, (Jail and Reform Services Directorate), Government of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, (Jail and Reform
Services Directorate), Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Inspector General Jail and Reform Services Inspectorate, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Special Work Officer Jail and Reform Services, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Superintendent, Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur-cum- Conducting
Officer Departmental Proceeding.
6. The Circle Superintendent Central Jail, Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amish Kumar, A.C. to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
9 23-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs:
“I. For quashing the order dated 08.01.2019
passed by The Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department (Jail & Reform Services
Directorate), Government of Bihar, Patna
(respondent No.2) in Service Appeal filed by the
petitioner, same was communicated vide Memo
Patna High Court CWJC No.467 of 2022(9) dt.23-03-2026
2/8
No.206 dated 08.01.2019, whereby respondent
No.2 has rejected the appeal filed by the
petitioner and affirmed order dated 21.08.2018
passed in Memo No. 5961.
II. For further to quashed the punishment order
held against the petitioner order vide Memo No.
5961 dated 21.08.2018 passed in by the
Inspector General, Jail & Reform Services
Inspectorate, Government of Bihar, Patna
(respondent No.3) whereby the petitioner has
been inflicted with punishment of blasphemy and
allocation of salary by deducting an amount
equivalent to two increment (Vetan Bridhi) in
common pay has been withheld
with non-cumulative effect.
III For further direction to pay rest salary of the
petitioner, which was deducted under
punishment order dated 21.08.2018 passed in
Memo No. 5961.
IV. Also for any other relief/reliefs for which the
petitioner is entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that at the
relevant time when the petitioner was posted and working as
Clerk-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Mandalkara (Jail),
Supaul, on one of the prisoners having committed suicide by
hanging himself in the cell, the petitioner was proceeded against
in a departmental proceeding by serving on him the memo of
Patna High Court CWJC No.467 of 2022(9) dt.23-03-2026
3/8
charge dated 25.10.2017 (Annexure-1). The petitioner filed his
written defence and the proceeding commenced. The
Conducting Officer submitted an inquiry report dated 11.4.2018
(Annexure-3) finding the 1st part of the charge no. 2 to have
been proved while the other charges were not proved. The
petitioner received a copy of the inquiry report to which he was
unable to file his reply on account of illness.
4. The respondents came out with the order of
punishment dated 21.8.2018 under the signature of the Inspector
General, Jail and Reform Services, Government of Bihar,
imposing the punishment of a censure and stoppage of two
annual increments with non-cumulative effect. Further, the
appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated
8.1.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department (Jail and Reform Services Directorate),
Government of Bihar. It is against these two orders dated
21.8.2018 and 8.1.2019 that the instant application has been
preferred.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that though the petitioner has several points to
contend, on perusal of the inquiry report it would transpire that
not a single witness was examined nor any witness proved any
Patna High Court CWJC No.467 of 2022(9) dt.23-03-2026
4/8
document. Consequently, the inquiry report does not refer to any
of the witness nor any document in support of the charges
having been proved against the petitioner. The order of
punishment as also the order passed in appeal thus are not
sustainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank;
(2009) 2 SCC 570.
6. In response, it is submitted by learned counsel
for the respondents that there is no illegality, procedural or
otherwise, in conducting the departmental proceeding and the
scope of judicial review in cases arising out of departmental
proceedings are very limited. Reference is made to the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State
of Karnataka & Anr. Versus N. Gangaraj; (2020) 3 SCC 423
and High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar
versus Shashikant S. Patil & Anr.; (2000) 1 SCC 416. Learned
counsel further submits that the order passed in appeal in the
year 2019 having been challenged three years later in the year
2022, the same is fit to be rejected on ground of delay and
laches. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water
Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors. Versus T.T. Murali Babu;
Patna High Court CWJC No.467 of 2022(9) dt.23-03-2026
5/8
(2014) 4 SCC 108.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
8. Bereft of unnecessary details, it may be observed
here that there is no dispute so far as the law limiting the scope
of judicial review in matters of departmental proceedings is
concerned. It has consistently been held that under the judicial
review what may be looked into by the Court is only as to
whether the proceedings were held by a competent officer, in
accordance with the rules and regulations applicable. The Court
in exercise of its power does not act as an Appellate Authority to
appreciate the evidence, but may only interfere in case there has
been any violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of
inquiry.
9. It is also not in dispute that the management is
required to lead evidence in course of the departmental
proceeding by oral evidence to prove the charges.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank; (2009) 2 SCC
570 held as follows:
“23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary
authority as also the appellate authority are not
supported by any reason. As the orders passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.467 of 2022(9) dt.23-03-2026
6/8
by them have severe civil consequences,
appropriate reasons should have been assigned.
If the enquiry officer had relied upon the
confession made by the appellant, there was no
reason as to why the order of discharge passed
by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame
evidence should not have been taken into
consideration. The materials brought on record
pointing out the guilt are required to be proved.
A decision must be arrived at on some evidence,
which is legally admissible. The provisions of the
Evidence Act may not be applicable in a
departmental proceeding but the principles of
natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry
officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also
surmises and conjectures, the same could not
have been sustained. The inferences drawn by
the enquiry officer apparently were not
supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well
known, however high may be, can under no
circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal
proof.”
11. Further a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Devendra Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
(judgment dated 19.10.2023 passed in LPA no.1302 of 2017),
following Roop Singh Negi (supra) observed as follows:-
"7. As has been held in Roop Singh Negi v.
Punjab National Bank and others; (2009) 2 SCC
570, the documents produced in a departmental
inquiry has to be proved by examining witnesses.
Patna High Court CWJC No.467 of 2022(9) dt.23-03-2026
7/8
Even an F.I.R. was held to be not evidence by
itself without actual proof of facts stated therein.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also held that
even an admission or confession to the police
itself is not sufficient to find the delinquent
employee guilty in a departmental proceeding if
no evidence is brought on record to prove the
offence or misconduct alleged. Departmental
inquiry was held to be a quasi-judicial
proceeding and the Inquiry Officer functions in
the status of a quasi- judicial authority. Not only
should evidence be led in a departmental
inquiry, the conclusions arrived at should be
based on evidence which brings forth a
probability that the delinquent has committed the
misconduct alleged and charged against him. No
Inquiry Report based on conjectures and
surmises can be sustained and even in a
departmental inquiry, the standard of proof is
not a mere suspicion. However high the degree
of suspicion is, it cannot be a substitute for legal
proof."
12. On perusal of the contents of the inquiry report
brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ application, it
transpires that neither the evidence of any witness whatsoever
has been dealt with nor has it been stated that any documentary
evidence lead to substantiate the charges was proved in course
of the inquiry.
Patna High Court CWJC No.467 of 2022(9) dt.23-03-2026
8/8
13. Thus in the opinion of the Court, the
Conducting Officer having proceeded to submit the inquiry
report without any oral or documentary evidence lead in course
of the departmental proceeding, as held in the case of Roop
Singh Negi (supra), this clearly is a case of no evidence against
the petitioner.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances stated
herein above, neither the order of punishment dated 21.8.2018
nor the order rejecting the petitioner's appeal dated 8.1.2019 can
be sustained.
15. The orders of punishment dated 21.8.2019 passed
by the Inspector General, Jail and Reform Services,
Government of Bihar, and also the order rejecting the appeal
dated 8.1.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department (Jail and Reform Services), Government of Bihar,
being not sustainable are both hereby set aside.
16. The writ application is allowed with all
consequential benefits.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash/-
U
Checking your session…