Patna High Court
Sujit Kumar JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The disciplinary authority complied with the requirement of giving the petitioner an opportunity to represent, and the punishment order is valid.
Summary
The petitioner, a jail superintendent, was subjected to a departmental proceeding after contraband was recovered during raids on his jail. Two enquiry reports found the charges unproved, but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed, issued a second show‑cause notice, and imposed a punishment of stopping three salary increments. The petitioner challenged the punishment and the subsequent review order, alleging a breach of Rule 18(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and principles of natural justice because he was not given a chance to be heard before the authority recorded its finding. The State argued that the show‑cause notice constituted a proper opportunity to represent. The High Court held that the disciplinary authority had indeed provided a specific show‑cause notice with tentative reasons and allowed the petitioner to reply, thereby satisfying the natural‑justice requirement, and distinguished a prior similar case on factual grounds. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the punishment order.
Issues considered
- Whether the Disciplinary Authority violated Rule 18(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and principles of natural justice by not granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before recording its finding.
- Whether the punishment order of stopping three increments is legally valid.
- Whether the earlier judgment in Sujit Kumar Jha (C.W.J.C No. 4978 of 2023) is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 — s. Rule 14(VI), Rule 18(3)
- Bihar Jail Manual — s. Rule 796, Rule 870
Subjects
- departmental proceedings
- natural justice
- disciplinary action
- Bihar CCA Rules
- jail superintendent
- contraband seizure
- punishment order
- increment stoppage
- show-cause notice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4825 of 2022
======================================================
Sujit Kumar Jha Son of Late Dinesh Jha, Resident of Nayagaon, Police
Station-Rayam, Block-Kewati, District-Darbhanga Presently Posted as Jail
Superintendent, Aurangabad, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Inspector General (Prison), BIhar, Patna.
4. The Joint Secretary-Cum-Director (Prison), Bihar, Patna.
5. The Deputy Secretary-Cum-Deputy Director (Prison), Bihar, Patna.
6. The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea.
7. The District Magistrate, Katihar.
8. The Superintendent of Police, Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Venkatesh Kaushik, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nasrul Huda Khan (SC-1)
Mr. Md. Harun Quareshi (AC to SC-1)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-01-2026
Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief/s:-
“I. For setting aside the resolution
dated 01.11.2021 (Annexure-4)
contained in Memo No. 9262 passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.4825 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
2/11
by the Joint Secretary-cum-Director
(Prison) (Respondent no.4) whereby
and whereunder an order of
punishment for stoppage of three
increment with cumulative effect has
been awarded in exercise of power
under Rule 14(VI) of the Bihar Govt.
Servants (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 2005.
II. For setting aside the resolution
dated 30.12.2021 (Annexure-6)
contained in Memo No. 10806 passed
by the Joint Secretary-cum-Director
(Prison) (Respondent No. 4), by
which review preferred by the
petitioner against the order of
aforesaid punishment has been
rejected.
III. For grant of any other relief or
reliefs for which the petitioner is
legally entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner while posted as Jail Superintendent,
Katihar, a raid was conducted by the then District Magistrate
and the Superintendent of Police, Katihar on 11.08.2018 in the
Jail and some prohibited articles i.e. mobile phone, pen drive,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4825 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
3/11
electronic goods, etc. were recovered, and pursuant to the said
raid, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the
petitioner vide resolution dated 11.02.2019 contained in Memo
No. 1226 under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bihar
CCA Rules, 2005’). In the said resolution, prapatra - Ka was
also served. Senior counsel further submits that an Enquiry
Officer was appointed in the said proceeding along with a
Presenting Officer, and the said Enquiry Officer submitted his
report dated 30.06.2020 and reached on the conclusion that the
charges alleged were not proved. Senior counsel submits that
the said enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary
Authority, who, upon disagreeing with the said findings,
remitted the matter again to the same Enquiry Officer. The
Enquiry Officer thereafter, submitted his enquiry report on
18.03.2021, stating that no evidence had been produced by the
Presenting Officer in order to prove the charges against the
petitioner and, therefore, again concluded that the charges
alleged against the petitioner were not proved.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the Disciplinary Authority, after receiving the
enquiry report, issued a second show-cause notice to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4825 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
4/11
petitioner vide Memo No. 4068 dated 17.05.2021, expressing
disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and
directed the petitioner to submit his reply within 15 days. In the
said show-cause notice, an allegation was made that the
petitioner had violated the provisions of the Bihar Jail Manual.
Counsel further submits that, in response to the second show-
cause notice, a detailed reply was submitted, whereupon, a
punishment order dated 01.11.2021 was passed, which has been
challenged in the present writ petition. Senior counsel submits
that the petitioner is a Gazetted Officer therefore, he preferred a
review petition under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, which was
again rejected on 30.12.2021 contained in Memo No. 10806,
and the order of punishment was approved/affirmed. Senior
counsel further submits that in the punishment order, which has
been approved by the Appellate Authority, allegations of
violation of Rule 796 and Rule 870 of the Bihar Jail Manual
have been levelled against the petitioner. Senior counsel further
submits that after issuance of the second show-cause notice
alleging violation of the said provisions of law, namely Rule 796
and Rule 870 of the Bihar Jail Manual, no opportunity of
hearing was granted to the petitioner and the same amounts to
gross violation of Rule 18(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4825 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
5/11
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further
submits that a similar case was filed against the petitioner
alleging charges, which the petitioner challenged in C.W.J.C
No. 4978 of 2023 (Sujit Kumar Jha Vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors.), wherein, vide order dated 15.09.2025, the writ petition
was allowed and the resolution dated 09.11.2022, whereby
punishment of withholding of four increments of pay with
cumulative effect had been awarded, was quashed, and the
petitioner was held entitled to consequential benefits, including
monetary benefits. Senior counsel further relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Punjab National Bank and Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra,
reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84, and submits that whenever the
Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the Enquiry Authority on
any article of charge, then before it records its own finding on
such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such
disagreement and give the delinquent officer an opportunity to
represent before it records its finding. Senior counsel submits
that in the present case, disagreement and reasons have been
assigned, but no opportunity to represent before recording its
finding has been granted to the petitioner, which is a gross
violation. Hence, he submits that the said punishment order and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4825 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
6/11
the review order be set aside, as the punishment order has been
passed without granting any opportunity prior to the finding of
the Disciplinary Authority.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that there is no need for any interference in the orders
passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Review Authority,
as Rule 18(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005, clearly indicates
the circumstances under which the Disciplinary Authority may
disagree with the Enquiry Authority, and for that it is only
required to assign its own reasons. Therefore, according to him,
there is no violation of Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005,
and the punishment order has been passed only after granting a
second show-cause notice, meaning thereby, an opportunity of
hearing has been granted to the petitioner. Hence, there is no
violation of either the Rules or the judgment quoted and relied
upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.
7. Upon hearing the parties and after going through
the records, it transpires that the charge memo is in four parts.
The first part is the details with regard to the petitioner. The
second part is the summary of allegations of misconduct or
misbehaviour. The third part is the allegation of charges of
misconduct or misbehaviour. The fourth part is the list of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4825 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
7/11
documents and the list of witnesses on which the charges are to
be proved. This Court finds that both the Enquiry Officers have
found the charges not proved against the petitioner, but in the
second show-cause notice dated 17.05.2021, reasons have been
assigned for disagreement and a reply has been sought. It
transpires to this Court that, in accordance with Rule 18(3) of
the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, a specific show-cause notice was
issued and, in this manner, an opportunity was granted to the
petitioner on the point of disagreement for which reasons were
assigned.
8. With regard to the judgment in the case of Sujit
Kumar Jha (supra), wherein, relief was granted to the
petitioner, but the factual matrix is slightly different, as in the
said case, during the period of posting of the petitioner, a video
went viral on social media regarding a quarrel that took place
between prisoners on 30.08.2017. However, in the present case,
the situation is quite different, as it is indicated in the charge
memo that earlier during two consecutive raids dated
17.06.2018 and 09.07.2018, the District Administration found
10 mobile phones, scissor, knife, mobile charger, and a huge
quantity of contraband articles on 17.06.2018, whereas 2 mobile
phones and other contraband articles were seized on 09.07.2018.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4825 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
8/11
9. A composite charge has been issued indicating
recovery of 11 mobile phones, 09 mobile chargers, 02 pen
drives, 02 memory cards, other electronic articles, cash
amounting to Rs. 19,300/-, 500 ml of foreign liquor, 100 grams
of ganja, and huge quantities of khaini, gutkha, bhang,
cigarettes. Objectionable items were recovered along with
mobile phones, scissors, knives, and mobile chargers. In the
charge memo, it is alleged that raids were conducted on three
occasions, namely on 17.06.2018, 09.07.2018, and 11.08.2018,
and repeated recovery of such articles has been alleged to be in
violation of the provisions of law under the Bihar Police
Manual, as indicated in the second show-cause notice, the
punishment order, as well as in the review order.
10. It is for this reason that the factual matrix of the
case of Sujit Kumar Jha (supra) is different from the present
case. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the said judgment
is not applicable in the present case and shall not help the
present petitioner in any manner in the present case.
11. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Punjab National Bank
and Ors. (supra) is concerned, it’s Para 19 thereof is most
relevant for the present case, which states as follows:–
Patna High Court CWJC No.4825 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
9/11
“19. The result of the aforesaid
discussion would be that the
principles of natural justice have to
be read into Regulation 7(2). As a
result thereof, whenever the
disciplinary authority disagrees with
the enquiry authority on any article
of charge, then before it records its
own findings on such charge, it must
record its tentative reasons for such
disagreement and give to the
delinquent officer an opportunity to
represent before it records its
findings. The report of the enquiry
officer containing its findings will
have to be conveyed and the
delinquent officer will have an
opportunity to persuade the
disciplinary authority to accept the
favourable conclusion of the enquiry
officer. The principles of natural
justice, as we have already observed,
require the authority which has to
take a final decision and can impose
a penalty, to give an opportunity to
the officer charged of misconduct to
file a representation before the
disciplinary authority records its
findings on the charges framed
against the officer.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.4825 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
10/11
12. From the said observation made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it become crystal clear that whenever the
Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the Inquiry Authority on
any article of charge, then before it records its own finding on
such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such
disagreement and give the delinquent officer an opportunity to
represent before it records its finding. Meaning thereby, prior to
passing the final order, an opportunity to represent has to be
given to the delinquent by the Disciplinary Authority.
13. In the present case, the disagreement memo,
i.e., the second show-cause notice dated 17.05.2021, assigns
tentative reasons for such disagreement, and the delinquent
officer was given an opportunity to represent. The delinquent
officer replied to the show-cause notice, and only thereafter, the
final order was passed. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view
that the ratio laid down in the case Punjab National Bank &
Ors. (supra), as mentioned in it’s para 19 quoted above, has
been duly followed.
14. This Court finds that there is neither any
violation of law nor any violation of principles of natural
justice, nor is the punishment exorbitant, as it has been imposed
only for the stoppage of three increments with cumulative
Patna High Court CWJC No.4825 of 2022 dt.20-01-2026
11/11
effect.
15. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in
this matter, as the punishment order as well as the review order
have been passed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the
present writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27/01/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.