Patna High Court
Nutan Kumar PrabhatversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The dismissal order and the confirming service appeal were set aside because the departmental enquiry violated Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 and was not supported by any admissible evidence, breaching principles of natural justice.
Summary
The petitioner, a Revenue Karamchari, was suspended and later dismissed on allegations that he received Rs 2,00,000 from a complainant to influence two land‑record cases. The departmental charge memo was issued without a proper statement of imputation, list of documents or witnesses, violating Rule 17(3) and 17(4) of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005. The enquiry officer neither fixed a date for oral or documentary evidence nor examined any witnesses, and the enquiry report lacked any reasoned finding. The appellate authority affirmed the dismissal without considering the petitioner’s defence. The High Court held that the enquiry was procedurally defective, unsupported by evidence and contrary to principles of natural justice, and therefore set aside both the dismissal order and the service appeal order. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to back‑pay, pension and other retirement benefits from the date of superannuation.
Issues considered
- Whether the charge memo complied with the mandatory requirements of Rule 17(3) and 17(4) of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005.
- Whether the petitioner was afforded a proper show‑cause notice and opportunity to be heard in accordance with natural justice.
- Whether the departmental enquiry was conducted with proper evidence, including oral testimony and documentary proof, as required by Rule 17(14) and related provisions.
- Whether the dismissal order is vitiated for lack of evidence and procedural defects.
- Whether the appellate authority erred by not considering the petitioner’s defence.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension and other service benefits after superannuation.
Subjects
- departmental enquiry
- dismissal
- procedural fairness
- natural justice
- Rule 17
- Bihar Government Servants Rules
- evidence
- charge memo
- pension
- service appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4696 of 2023
======================================================
Nutan Kumar Prabhat Son of Late Gauri Shankar Singh Resident of Village-
Kunwarpur Pasrampur, P.S.-Pipra. District-East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue and Land Reforms Govt. of Bihar, Patna,
2. The Commissioner Cum Appellate Authority, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
3. The Distirct Magistrate/Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah.
4. The Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah.
5. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector Cum the Presenting Officer, Bettiah,
Sadar West Champaran.
6. The Director Cum Inquiry Officer, Accounts Administration and Self-
Employment District Rural Development Agency, West Champaran, Bettiah.
7. The Circle Officer, Beriya Circle, West Champaran, Bettiah.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Shashank Chandra, Advocate
: Mr. Nitish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC-19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing the order dated 6.12.2018 contained in Memo No.189
passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby he has dismissed the
petitioner from the post of Revenue Karamchari, Circle-
Bairiyah, West Champaran with effect from his date of
suspension i.e. 29.04.2017 and the order passed in appeal dated
17.01.2023 in Service Appeal No. 92 of 2022 issued by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
2/42
respondent no.2 whereby he has affirmed the order of dismissal
dated 6.12.2018, by modifying the effect of the said order from
the date of its issuance i.e. 06.12.2018 instead of 29.04.2017.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that on 10.01.1986 the petitioner was appointed as a Revenue
Karamchari, Circle-Madhubani and thereafter was transferred to
Yogapatti circle in 1991, from there he was transferred to
different circles/anchals and finally again he was transferred to
Bairiyah circle/anchal in the year, 2016. While the petitioner
was discharging his duties as Revenue Karamchari, Nautan
Anchal, a complaint was filed by one Binod Kumar Singhania
before District Grievances Redressal Officer, West Champaran
with an allegation that in order to settle two cases i.e. Jamabandi
Cancellation Case No. 33 of 2015-16 and Jamabandi
Cancellation Case No. 53 of 2015 pending in the court of
DCLR, the petitioner is demanding some gratification from the
complainant, on the pretest that he has already been paid Rs.
2,00,000/- from the opposite party. In support of his complaint,
Binod Kumar Singhania enclosed certain documents like bank
statement of Om Prakash Singhania showing transfer of Rs.
2,00,000/- in the accounts of the petitioner on 29.11.2016, death
certificate of Om Prakash Singhania as well as a Sanha
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
3/42
instituted by Shanti Devi before the SHO Bettiah Town PS in
which she had stated that cheque bearing No. 162295 has been
misused.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that it is further case of the petitioner that the Public Grievance
Redressal Officer, upon receipt of the aforesaid complaint, vide
letter no. 174 dated 20.03.2017 called for a report from the
District Magistrate, Bettiah, who directed the Additional
Collector to enquire into the allegations. The Additional
Collector vide Memo No. 813 dated 03.04.2017 issued notice to
the petitioner, directing him to appear on 06.04.2017 and in
compliance thereof, the petitioner appeared on the said date and
tried to submit his written explanation, but the same was not
accepted, therefore the petitioner sent a letter dated 13.04.2017
to the District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah wherein
he specifically stated that the Additional Collector did not
accept his written explanation and as such he has apprehension
that he will not get justice before the said authority. In the said
letter, the petitioner had explained in detail that he has personal
relations with Om Prakash Singhania and on account of said
relation earlier also some monetary transaction had taken place
between them and since the wife of Om Prakash Singhania was
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
4/42
not well, for which he required some money for getting her
treated, as such the petitioner arranged the said money from his
friend Ajay Giri, who gave Rs. 200000/- as loan, which was
subsequently given by the petitioner to Om Prakash Singhania
and in order to refund the said amount, the said Om Prakash
Singhania issued a bearer cheque No. 162295 dated 04.11.2016
in favour of the petitioner. However, since there was vacations
in lieu of Chhath Puja and also on account of demonetization,
the petitioner deposited the said cheque in his bank account
which was credited on 30.11.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner
vide his cheque no.629368 returned the said amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- to the wife of Ajay Giri and as such on 05.12.2016,
the said amount was debited from the account of the petitioner.
The petitioner also stated in the letter that the case between
Binod Kumar Singhania and Om Prakash Singhania is related to
Chanpatiya and Nautan circle office and the petitioner is posted
in Bairiyah circle, therefore under no circumstance the
petitioner could have influenced the decision of the said cases.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further
submits that during enquiry, the Additional Collector, Bettiah
found the petitioner guilty and vide letter no.825 dated
07.04.2017, informed the District Magistrate, West Champaran
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
5/42
at Bettiah that the allegations against the petitioner of receiving
Rs. 2,00,000/- from Om Prakash Singhania to get a favourable
order in his favour has been duly proved and based on the said
information, the petitioner was put under suspension vide order
contained in memo No. 1063 dated 29.04.2017 issued under the
signature of the District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah,
in contemplation of departmental enquiry and the headquarter of
the petitioner was fixed in the office of the Circle Officer,
Chanpatiya. A charge memo dated 02.08.2017 contained in
Memo No. 2015 was issued wherein certain charges were
levelled against the petitioner.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
further submits that from perusal of the charge memo dated
02.08.2017, it would manifest that the charge memo, apart from
incorporating the charges merely records the documents based
on which the department intends to prove the charges lavelled
against the petitioner, however none of the documents were
enclosed with the charge memo nor the charge memo contained
any statement of imputation of misconduct as well as the list of
documents and the witnesses to be relied upon by the
department as mandated by Rule 17(4) of the Bihar Government
Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005. He further contends that therefore
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
6/42
the charge memo which was issued in contravention of the
aforesaid mandatory provision of the Rules, which perse renders
the disciplinary proceeding bad, since its inception. The
petitioner submitted his reply on 26.08.2017 wherein he denied
all the charges levelled against him.
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
further submits that upon initiation of the departmental
proceeding, the enquiry officer is required to fix a date for
leading oral and documentary evidences on behalf of the
disciplinary authority as contemplated in Rule 17(14) of the
Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005, but no such
date was ever fixed by the enquiry officer and nor any evidences
were adduced on behalf of the department to prove the charges,
however, without following the said procedure, the enquiry
officer proceeded with the enquiry and sought a written opinion
from the Land Reforms Deputy Collector-Cum-Presenting
Officer, Bettiah, Sadar, West Champaran, who submitted the
same by his letter no. 225 dated 01.09.2017. Subsequently, the
enquiry officer directed the petitioner to submit his written
statement of defence and in compliance thereof, the petitioner
submitted his written statement of defence on 9.10.2017,
reiterating his earlier written defence, which was submitted by
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
7/42
him on 26.08.2017, to the charge memo.
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
further submits that during entire departmental enquiry, no
witnesses were examined to prove the charges and the
Presenting Officer did not even tender the documentary
evidence during the entire enquiry, but even then the Enquiry
Officer submitted his enquiry report on 11.10.2017 whereby he
found the charges to be proved against the petitioner. Second
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Memo No.
568 dated 18.12.2017 issued under the signature of the ADM,
District Establishment Section, East Champaran at Bettiah
whereby the petitioner was directed to submit his reply within 7
days and in compliance of the letter dated 18.12.2017, the
petitioner submitted his reply on 22.12.2017. Apart from the
defence which the petitioner had earlier taken during course of
enquiry, the petitioner also stated that the Enquiry Officer
during enquiry, acted in a haste and did not even collect
necessary evidence, neither the Enquiry Officer appreciated the
evidences submitted by the petitioner to rebut the charges nor
during the enquiry any witnesses were examined and requested
for exonerating him from the charges levelled against him. In
the mean time the petitioner filed CWJC No. 18352 of 2018
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
8/42
before this Court challenging the order of suspension dated
29.04.2017, but during the pendency of the aforementioned writ
petition, by the impugned order contained in Memo No. 189
dated 6.12.2018 issued under the signature of the District
Magistrate/Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah, the petitioner
was terminated from service from the date of his suspension i.e.
29.04.2017. The petitioner by way of filing a supplementary
affidavit in the C.W.J.C. No.18352 of 2018 questioned the
validity of the order of dismissal dated 06.12.2018, but the said
writ application was disposed of vide order dated 20.04.2022,
giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of
dismissal by filling a departmental appeal.
9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the petitioner in terms of the liberty granted
by a Coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated
20.04.2022, preferred service appeal which was numbered as
Service Appeal No. 92 of 2022 before the Divisional
Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur but the Appellate
Authority without even considering the defence taken by the
petitioner in his memo of appeal, affirmed the order of dismissal
passed by the disciplinary authority on 06.12.2018, by
modifying the same to the extent that instead of the order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
9/42
dismissal issued from the date of suspension i.e. 29.04.2017, the
same will be from the date of its issuance and not from any
retrospective date. Meaning thereby that the date of dismissal of
the petitioner from service was modified from 29.04.2017 to
06.12.2018.
10. The learned senior counsel for petitioner while
assailing the order of dismissal passed by the District
Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah dated 06.12.2018
submits that the Disciplinary Authority while passing the
impugned order of punishment did not consider the defence
submitted by the petitioner and relied on the report submitted by
the Enquiry Officer. Even the Appellate Authority while
rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner, did not bother to
take into consideration the defence taken by the petitioner in his
memo of appeal, whereby he had stated that the said amount
was transferred to the account of the wife of Ajay Giri and there
was no direct transaction between Neelam Giri and Om Prakash
Singhania.
11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the charge memo itself was defective since
it does not contain the list of witnesses and it does not contain
any statement of imputation of misconduct as well as the list of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
10/42
documents, as mandated under the provisions contained in Rule
17(4) of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005.
12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that upon initiation of the departmental proceeding, the
enquiry officer was required to fix a date for leading oral and
documentary evidence on behalf of the disciplinary authority in
terms of Rule 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA)
Rules, 2005, but no such date was fixed nor any evidence was
adduced on behalf of the department to prove the charges. He
further submits that the departmental proceeding was in
violation of Rule 17(23) of the Bihar Government Servants
(CCA) Rules, 2005, since no appreciation of evidence was ever
done and further, the enquiry report is cryptic, perverse as well
as perfunctory in nature, since the report merely records the
charges and the explanation of the petitioner to the charges and
the opinion of the Presenting Officer, however, the same does
not even remotely records the discussion of the enquiry
authority, as to how the charges against the petitioner have been
proved. Even no reason has been assigned for coming to the
conclusion that in what manner the order of Public Grievance
Redressal Officer proves the charges against the petitioner.
Rules 17(23) of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
11/42
2005 provides that upon conclusion of the enquiry, a record
shall be prepared which should contain the article of charges,
the defence of delinquent and the assessments of the evidence in
respect of each of the article of the charges and the findings on
each of the article of charges and the reasons thereof, but the
enquiry report does not fullfill any of the aforesaid mandate.
The Enquiry Officer during the departmental proceeding acted
as a representative of the department and not as an independent
adjudicator, since the report discloses complete non-application
of mind.
13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner refers
to and relies on a judgment of a 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 and Ors.) wherein in paragraph
nos. 16 and 17 the learned Division Bench of this Court has held
as follows:-
“16. We also notice the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Roop Sing Negi Vs. Punjan National
Bank 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
12/42
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 Judge and also find the
enquiry to be not in accordance with
law.”
14. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies
on a judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 23560 of 2019 (Md. Jamil Akhtar
versus the State of Bihar & Ors.) wherein in paragraph no. 13, it
has been held as follows:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
13/42
“13. Perusal of the memo of charge clearly
shows that the same was not
accompanied by the list of documents
and list of witnesses and thus, there is
complete defiance of Rule 17(3) and
17(4) of Rules, 2005. It would be
worth noting that Rule 17(3) casts an
obligation on the disciplinary
authority to draw a charge against a
delinquent Government servant or
cause it to be drawn up against the
officer delinquent. It is specifically
ruled that the substance of imputation
of misconduct or misbehaviour has
definite and distinct Articles of
Charge. In support of each charge the
statement of all relevant facts,
including a list of such documents by
which and a list of such witnesses by
whom the Articles of Charge is
sustained. Rule 17(4) of Rules, 2005
further mandates the delivery of
charge memo so drawn up either
through the disciplinary authority or
through an officer duly authorized.
The obligation cast on the
disciplinary authority has further
mandated him to satisfy himself,
whether the explanation so forwarded
by a delinquent on the proposed
charge requires an enquiry by the
enquiry officer or requires a closure.
While reiterating the afore-noted
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
14/42
proposition of law, this Court in the
case of Shankar Dayal vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 7207
of 2016) held that this power is
exclusively vested in the disciplinary
authority and cannot be delegated.”
15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies
on a judgment dated 09.05.2017 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 610 of 2017 (Ashwini Kumar
versus the State of Bihar & Ors.) wherein in paragraph nos. 9,
10, 11 & 12, it has been held as follows:-
“9. Before I would proceed to deal with the
issue raised and contested, I deem it
necessary to refer to Rule 17 of "the
Rules" which casts certain obligation on
the disciplinary authority requiring a
discharge before he proceeds to draw a
proceeding for imposing a major
penalty. Rule 17(3) of the Rules relates
to drawing of a charge-sheet and which
inter alia mandatorily requires the
disciplinary authority not only to give a
list of documents on which the charges
are founded but also give a list of such
witness by whom, the article of charges
are to be proved. Annexure-18 is the
charge-sheet and which simply refers to
certain documents as evidence but no
list of witness accompanies the charge-
sheet through whom the department
proposed to uphold the charges. In other
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
15/42
words, the charge-sheet itself is de hors
the statutory prescriptions for until such
time that a list of witness accompanies a
charge-sheet, the documents relied upon
by the department suo motu cannot be
simply relied upon for proving a charge
as held by the Supreme Court in the case
of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab
National Bank since reported in
(2009)2 SCC 570. That was a case in
which the department was relying upon
the First Information report to uphold
the guilt but no witness was led by the
Presenting Officer to prove the police
report and it is taking note of such
circumstance that the Supreme Court
has proceeded to hold thus at paragraph
14 of the judgment:-
"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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
16/42
accused by itself could not be
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."
(Emphasis is supplied)
10. The second ground on which the
proceeding stands invalidated is that
even though a Presenting Officer was
appointed vide Annexure-17 but he has
failed in his duty as cast upon him under
Rule 17(14) of "the Rules" which inter
alia stipulates that, "on the date fixed for
the enquiry, the oral and documentary
evidence by which the article of charges
are proposed to be proved shall be
produced by or on behalf of the
disciplinary authority. The witnesses
shall be examined by or on behalf of the
Presenting Officer and may be cross-
examined by or on behalf of Government
servant. The Presenting Officer shall be
entitled to re-examine the witnesses on
any points on which they have been
cross-examined, but not on any new
matter without the leave of the enquiring
authority. The enquiring authority may
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
17/42
also put such questions to the witnesses
as it thinks fit."
11. It is undisputed that in the present case
no witness was led by the department
nor any attempt was made by the
Presenting Officer to get the
documentary evidence proved during the
course of the disciplinary proceedings.
On the contrary, it is simply taking note
of the departmental stand as reflecting
from Annexure-21 of writ petition that
the Departmental Enquiry
Commissioner has proceeded to uphold
the quilt and even though the enquiry
report runs into almost 30 pages but the
substance is lacking because the enquiry
report is not supported by any material.
The role of an Enquiry Officer and the
obligation cast upon him stands
discussed in judgment of the Supreme
Court rendered in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha
since reported in (2010)2 SCC 772 and
1 am tempted to reproduce paragraph
28 of the judgment which succinctly
explains the legal position;
"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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
18/42
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." (Emphasis is
supplied)
12. Completing the circle of invalidation is the
final order of dismissal which neither
takes into consideration the defence so
led by the petitioner nor the issue raised
by him rather it proceeds to comment
upon past conduct of the petitioner to
form his opinion, which act of a
disciplinary authority has already been
deprecated by the Supreme Court in the
judgment in the case of Indu Bhushan
Dwivedi vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
reported in (2010)11 SCC 278 [:
2010(3) PLJR (SC)197).
16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further
relies on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Ashok Paswan Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
19/42
Reported in 2021 (4) PLJR 490 wherein in paragraph no.10, it
has been held as follows:-
“10. The Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control & Appeal)
Rules, 2005 (for short "CCA Rules,
2005) lays down exhaustive
procedure for imposition of major
and minor penalties. Rule-17 of the
CCA. Rules, 2005, which lays
down the procedure for imposition
of major penalty mandates in sub
Rule-4 that the disciplinary
authority shall deliver or cause to
be delivered to the Government
servant a copy of the articles of
charge, such statement of the
imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour and "a list of
documents and witnesses by which
each article of charge is proposed
to be sustained and shall require
the Government servant to submit,
within such time as may be
specified, a written statement of his
defence and to state whether he
desires to be heard in person". A
charge containing allegation of
demand or acceptance of bribe
ordinarily cannot be proved in the
absence of any oral evidence,
unless such charge has been
proved earlier in any other judicial
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
20/42
or quasi judicial proceeding. It is
against basic logic and
comprehension that a charge
relating to demand or acceptance
of bribe can be established by a
Department against a Government
servant without any witness before
the Inquiring Authority unless
specifically admitted by the
delinquent. As no witness was
examined before the Inquiring
Authority on behalf of the
Department to establish the charge
of demand or acceptance of bribe
against the petitioner, the
petitioner did not have any
opportunity to cross-examine.”
17. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further
relies on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Uma Shankar Ram Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.
Reported in 2025 (1) BLJ 783 wherein in paragraph no.15, 19,
20 and 21 it has been held as follows:-
“15. It is well settled that mere production
of a document is not enough. The
content of documentary evidence has
to be proved by examining witnesses.
19. The role of the Enquiry Officer who is
acting in a quasi judicial authority in a
departmental/disciplinary authority is
well founded that he is not supposed
to be a representative of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
21/42
department/disciplinary authority. His
function is to examine evidence
presented by the department, even in
absence of delinquent official to see
as to whether unrebutted evidence is
sufficient to hold that the charges are
proved.
20. In the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has highlighted the status and duties
of the Enquiry Officer by holding that
the employee should be treated fairly
in any proceeding which may
culminate in punishment being
imposed upon him.
21. It would be apt and proper to
reproduce the relevant paragraphs of
the said decision, which are quoted
hereunder-
"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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
22/42
statement of witnesses mentioned
in the charge-sheet. Since the
government servant is absent, he
would clearly lose the benefit of
crossexamination 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
quasijudicial 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
23/42
been proved against the
respondents.
29. Apart from the above, by virtue of
Article 311(2) of the Constitution
of India the departmental enquiry
had to be conducted in accordance
with the rules of natural justice. It
is a basic requirement of the rules
of natural justice that an employee
be given a reasonable opportunity
of being heard in any proceedings
which may culminate in
punishment being imposed on the
employee.
30. When a departmental enquiry is
conducted against the government
servant it cannot be treated as a
casual exercise. The enquiry
proceedings also cannot be
conducted with a closed mind. The
inquiry officer has to be wholly
unbiased. The rules of natural
justice are required to be observed
to ensure not only that justice is
done but is manifestly seen to be
done. The object of rules of natural
justice is to ensure that a
government servant is treated fairly
in proceedings which may
culminate in imposition of
punishment including
dismissal/removal from service."”
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
24/42
18. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
further relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. Versus Saroj Kumar Sinha, whererin in paragraph nos. 26,
27 and 28, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
25/42
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 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 c 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
26/42
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 d against
the respondents.
19. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further
relies on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Arun Kumar Verma Versus Chairman Cum Managing
Director, BSPHCL & Ors. Reported in 2024 (3) BLJ 539
wherein in paragraph no.23A, 24 and 25 it has been held as
follows:-
23A. It is a settled proposition of law that
the reasons should be recorded as it is
incumbent upon to authorities to pass
a reasoned and speaking order. The
Apex Court in the case of Kranti
Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Masood
Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9
SCC 496, Para 47 elaborately
considered as how the judicial, quasi-
judicial and other orders should be
paragraph 47 reads as under:-
"47. Summarising the above
discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has
always been to record reasons,
even in administrative
decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
27/42
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must
record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons
is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice
must not only be done it must
also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also
operates as a valid restraint on
any possible arbitrary exercise
of judicial and quasi-judicial or
even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion
has been exercised by the
decision-maker on relevant
grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as
indispensable a component of a
decision-making process as
observing principles of natural
justice by judicial, quasi-
judicial and even by
administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of
judicial review by superior
courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all
countries committed to rule of
law and constitutional
governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
28/42
relevant facts. This is virtually
the lifeblood of judicial
decision-making justifying the
principle that reason is the soul
of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial
opinions these days can be as
different as the judges and
authorities who deliver them.
All these decisions serve one
common purpose which is to
demonstrate by reason that the
relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is
important for sustaining the
litigants' faith in the justice
delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a
requirement for both judicial
accountability and
transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial
authority is not candid enough
about his/her decision-making
process then it is impossible to
know whether the person
deciding is faithful to the
doctrine of precedent or to
principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions
must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons
or "rubber-stamp reasons" is
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
29/42
not to be equated with a valid
decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that
transparency is the sine qua non
of restraint on abuse of judicial
powers. Transparency in
decision-making not only makes
the judges and decisionmakers
less prone to errors but also
makes them subject to broader
scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in
Defence of Judicial Candor
[(1987) 100 Harvard Law
Review 731-37].)
(n) Since the requirernent to record
reasons emanates from the
broad doctrine of fairness in
decision-making, the said
requirement is now virtually a
component of human rights and
was considered part of
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
Ruiz Torija vs. Spain [(1994) 19
EHRR 553) EHRR, at 562 para
29 and Anya vs. University of
Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405
(CA)], wherein the Court
referred to Article 6 of the
European Convention of Human
Rights which requires,
"adequate and intelligent
reasons must be given for
judicial decisions".
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
30/42
(o) In all common law jurisdictions
judgments play a vital role in
setting up precedents for the
future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement
of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is
virtually a part of "due
process."
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Victoria Memorial Hall vs.
Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity
reported in (2010) 3 SCC 732
reiterated that the decision of the
quasi-judicial authorities were to be
reasoned one.
25. Apart from this, when an action suffers
from mala fide or oppression or bias,
the courts may lift the veil to find not
only the motive behind action but
correctness of the allegations raised
against a person.
20. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner refers
to and relies on a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of The State of Bihar & Ors. Versus Vikash
Kumar @ Vikas Kumar in L.P.A No. 446 of 2024 wherein in
paragraph no. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 & 13 it has been held as follows:-
“7. We beg to differ, since the ground on which
the dismissal order was interfered with, was
not a technical defect in the conduct of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
31/42
enquiry. It is only when the termination of
an employee is faulted on a technical
ground, there is need for a remand on the
ground inter alia of violation of principles
of natural justice; so as to resume the
enquiry from the stage at which the
technical defect is noticed. Where, in an
enquiry carried out, there was no proper
evidence led, the management cannot be
allowed to correct its mistake by making a
remand and permitting fresh evidence to be
led to find the delinquent employee guilty of
the misconduct.
8. The decisions in Union of India v. Mohd.
Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 and
ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727;
considered the issue of denial of reasonable
opportunity, when the enquiry report was
not supplied to the delinquent employee;
after the 42nd amendment of the Constitution
of India. Before the 42nd amendment of the
Constitution, there was a requirement to
issue notice to the delinquent employee to
show-cause against the punishment
proposed, for which a reasonable
opportunity of making representation on the
penalty proposed was a mandatory
condition under Article 311 (2) of the
Constitution of India. The 42nd amendment
removed the above condition and it was the
contention of the employers that there was
no requirement to supply the enquiry report.
It was categorically held that whenever the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
32/42
Enquiry Officer is someone other than the
Disciplinary Authority and the report of the
Enquiry Officer holds the employee guilty of
all or any of the charges; with proposal for
any punishment or not, the delinquent
employee is entitled to a copy of the report
to enable him to make a representation to
the Disciplinary Authority against the
findings in the report.
9. The non-furnishing of the report, hence
amounts to violation of principles of natural
justice; in which context a remand is
necessitated, to supply the enquiry report
and afford a reasonable opportunity to the
delinquent to represent against the
prejudicial findings. The remand is to cure
the technical defect, so as to avoid any
prejudice being caused to the delinquent, by
reason of denial of a reasonable
opportunity, before being penalized and not
to clear up the lacuna committed by the
Management in the conduct of the enquiry;
especially when the enquiry was carried out
in a negligent manner without adducing any
valid evidence.
11. The learned Single Judge has relied on Union
of India v. P. Gunasekaran; (2015) 2 SCC
610 from which we extract Paragraph 12
and 13:
12. Despite the well-settled position, it is
painfully disturbing to note that the High
Court has acted as an appellate authority in
the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
33/42
even the evidence before the enquiry officer.
The finding on Charge I was accepted by
the disciplinary authority and was also
endorsed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the
High Court is not and cannot act as a
second court of first appeal. The High
Court, in exercise of its powers under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, shall not venture into reappreciation
of the evidence. The High Court can only
see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent
authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of
natural justice in conducting the
proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves
from reaching a fair conclusion by some
considerations extraneous to the evidence
and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves
to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous
considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is
so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could ever have arrived
at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously failed to admit the admissible
and material evidence;
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
34/42
(h) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence
which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no
evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court shall
not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the
enquiry, in case the same has been
conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence
on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave
it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of
punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
(underlining & bold font supplied, for
emphasis)
12. From the above extract it is very clear that
the High Court under Article 226/227 is
entitled to interfere when the finding of fact
is based on no evidence. If in every case
where no valid evidence is led at the
enquiry proceedings, there is a remand
made, it would be offering a premium to the
negligence of the Management/
Disciplinary Authority and condoning the
levity with which the departmental enquiry
was conducted. It is the Disciplinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
35/42
Authority who appoints the Enquiry Officer
and also the Presenting Officer. We would
think that the Presenting Officer would be
well versed in the procedures and also be
informed of the manner in which evidence
has to be led before the Enquiry Officer to
prove the misconduct alleged against the
delinquent employee.
13. In disciplinary enquiry proceedings, it is
also the trite principle that the standard of
proof is preponderance of probability as
distinguished from proof beyond reasonable
doubt; as would be required in a criminal
prosecution. However, if there is no
evidence led at the enquiry, there is no
question of any preponderance of
probability being drawn to find the
allegations proved nor can the delinquent
be penalized on the basis of peremptory
findings without any valid evidence.”
21. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State-
respondents submits that on the complaint filed by Binod
Kumar Singhania, a complaint was registered and it was found
during course of enquiry that Rs. 2,00,000/- was transferred in
the bank account of the petitioner through cheque on
29.11.2016. Further during course of enquiry, the Additional
Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah found from the statements
of the petitioner, complainant as well as the Land Reforms
Deputy Collector, Bettiah that the petitioner after receiving Rs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
36/42
2,00,000/- from the Om Prakash Singhania and his family
members told the complainant Binod Kumar Singhania that if
he will give more amount than what has been given by Om
Prakash Singhania, then he will manage to pass an order in his
favour. The DCLR, Bettiah submitted that due to busy schedule
in the election work from November, 2016 till date of his
appearance before the A.D.M., West Champaran at Bettiah,
orders in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.33 of 2015–16 and
Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.53 of 2015-16 could not be
passed and the order is ready and by 06.04.2017, the orders will
certainly be passed. The A.D.M., West Champaran at Bettiah
came to the conclusion that during the pendency of the
jamabandi cancellation cases, Om Prakash Singhania issued
cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner and it can be
said that the said cheque was issued for the disposal of the two
cases and he found the allegations level against the petitioner to
be proved.
22. Learned counsel for the State-respondent
further submits that based on the above said preliminary enquiry
report, the petitioner was put under suspension and memo of
charge was framed against him. The Presenting Officer and the
Enquiry Officer were appointed and the departmental
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
37/42
proceeding was initiated against the petitioner wherein by letter
dated 05.08.2017, the Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner to
be present on 12.08.2017 and to submit his explanation with
regard to the charges mentioned in Prapatra KA. The petitioner
appeared and filed his reply upon which the Enquiry Officer
directed the Presenting Officer to make available his findings,
on the explanation submitted by the petitioner and 09.09.2017
was fixed as a date for hearing and finally after completion of
the enquiry, submitted his report on 30.11.2017, wherein he
found the charges to be proved against the petitioner. Second
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and all the
relevant documents, including the enquiry report was provided
to the petitioner and in compliance thereof, the petitioner
submitted his second show cause reply on 22.12.2017, wherein
he prayed to exonerate him from the charges levelled against
him. The disciplinary authority by considering all the
documents, passed the impugned order by which, he dismissed
the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed a service appeal
before the appellate authority but the same was also dismissed
and the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the
appellate authority are in accordance of law and does not require
any interference by this court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
38/42
23. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after considering the materials available on record, this
Court finds that no show cause was issued to the petitioner
before issuance of the memo of charge. Further from perusal of
the charge memo, it would transpire that the chare memo is
based on certain documents, which the department intended to
rely during the departmental proceeding/enquriy, but the said
documents were not appended to the charge memo, thereby the
same was not provided to the petitioner, so that he can rebut the
same. Further, the charge memo does not contain any statement
of imputation or misconduct as well as the list of documents and
witnesses, which is a mandatory requirement as per the
provisions contained in Rule 17(3) & (4) of the Bihar
Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005. Therefore, the charge
memo itself was issued in contravention of the provisions
contained the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005.
Further during course of the enquiry, no evidence was adduced
on behalf of the department (the Presenting Officer) and no date
was fixed by the Enquiry Officer for leading oral and
documentary evidence on behalf of the departmental authorities,
which is in complete violations of the provisions contained in
Rule 17 (4) of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
39/42
2005, since no evidence was adduced on behalf of the
department and therefore, the petitioner could not get any
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which prejudiced
the case of the petitioner. In the present case, no documentary or
oral evidence was produced. It further appears that the entire
charge against the petitioner was that Binod Kumar Singhania
made a complaint of illegal demand of money from the
petitioner, however the said Binod Kumar Singhania was not
made a witness during course of the departmental proceeding, to
prove the allegation and to give an opportunity to the petitioner
to cross-examine him to rebut the allegations levelled by him.
Further, the enquiry report which was submitted by the Enquiry
Officer on 18.10.2017 merely records the charges, the
explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charges and the
opinion of the Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer even did
not give his opinion after considering the materials produced
before him and no reason has been given by the Enquiry Officer
to show that how he came to the conclusion that the charges
against the petitioner have been found to be proved. It further
appears that during course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer did
not act on his own, rather he acted as a representative of the
department and the enquiry report appears to be without
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
40/42
application of mind. It further appears that the disciplinary
authority while passing the order of punishment without even
considering the reply filed by the petitioner came to the
conclusion that the petitioner is guilty, during course of enquiry.
The disciplinary authority also did not consider any of the
defence taken by the petitioner in his second show cause reply
and without assigning any reason for rejecting the explanation
submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to pass the order of
punishment against the petitioner. Similarly, the Appellate
Authority has also not assigned any reason to rebut the
contention of the petitioner as taken in the memo of appeal and
proceeded to reject the complaint of the petitioner only on the
ground that Rs. 2,00,000/- was credited in the account of the
petitioner. It further appears that during pendency of the writ
petition, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on
31.11.2025.
24. Accordingly, on the basis of the considerations
made above, the order impugned contained in Memo No. 189
dated 06.12.2018 passed by the District Magistrate-Cum-
Collector, West Chamaparan at Bettiah and order dated
17.01.2023 passed in Service Appeal No. 92 of 2022 passed by
the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur are
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
41/42
hereby set aside.
25. The High Court under Article 226/227 is
entitled to interfere when the finding of fact is based on no
evidence and if in every case where no valid evidence is laid at
the enquiry proceeding, there is a remand made, it would be
offering a premium to the negligence of the
management/disciplinary authority and condoning the levity
with which the departmental enquiry was conducted. It is the
disciplinary authority, who appoints the Enquiry Officer and the
Presenting Officer and it is expected that the Presenting Officer
would be well versed in the procedures and also be informed in
the manner in which evidence has to be laid before the Enquiry
Officer, to prove the misconduct, alleged against a delinquent
employee. In a disciplinary enquiry proceeding, it is also the
trite principle that the standard of proof is preponderance of
probability as distinguished from proof beyond reasonable
doubt, as would be required in a criminal prosecution. However,
if there is no evidence laid at the enquiry, there is no question of
any preponderance of probability being drawn to find the
allegations proved nor can the delinquent be penalised on the
basis of peremptory finding without any valid evidence. The
disciplinary authority had an opportunity in a properly
Patna High Court CWJC No.4696 of 2023 dt.25-02-2026
42/42
constituted enquiry proceeding and if in such a proceeding no
evidence was laid, the punishment of dismissal has to be found
to be imposed on no valid evidence. Since, the petitioner has
superannuated on 31.10.2025, he would be deemed to have
continued in service from the date of dismissal and will be
entitled to be paid the entire pay and allowances. The petitioner
shall also be entitled to the retirement benefits, including
pension from the date of his superannuation.
26. The entire exercise must be completed within a
period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of the order.
27. The petitioner would be entitled for pension
w.e.f. 01.12.2025.
28. The writ petition is allowed in the
aforementioned terms.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 05.02.2026
Uploading Date 26.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.