Patna High Court

Md. Naseem AnsariversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 22 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The Court set aside the notice, letters, and punishment order, holding that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by an incompetent authority and were violative of procedural rules, but it did not order reinstatement, allowing only a fresh proceeding within nine months.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Naseem Ansari, sought quashing of multiple departmental actions taken against him by the Bihar Agriculture Department, alleging procedural defects and lack of jurisdiction. He contended that the charge memo was not issued in compliance with Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, that the enquiry officer did not examine the complainant or produce material evidence, and that the Director, not being the competent authority for a Group‑B employee, initiated the proceedings. The State argued that the charge memo was valid and that the disciplinary authority acted within its powers, relying on precedents that a court cannot reinstate an employee after setting aside a punishment order but must remit the matter for fresh enquiry. The Court examined the relevant memo (No.105 dated 25.01.2017) which clarifies the competent authority for Group‑B cases and found the proceedings initiated by the Director to be ultra vires and violative of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the notice, letters, and punishment order, but did not order reinstatement, directing that any fresh proceeding must be completed within nine months.

Issues considered

Whether the Director of Agriculture Department had jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Group‑B employee under the applicable rules.
Whether the charge memo complied with Rule 17(3) and Rule 18(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.
Whether the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, rendering the punishment order void.
Whether the court can reinstate the employee or must remit the matter for a fresh enquiry.
Whether a fresh disciplinary proceeding is permissible and must be concluded within the statutory period.

Subjects

departmental proceedings
disciplinary action
competent authority
natural justice
Rule 17(3)
Rule 18(3)
reinstatement
fresh proceeding
Bihar civil service
writ petition

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5300 of 2022
======================================================
Md. Naseem Ansari son of Late Md. Wajid Ansari, resident of Village -
Bhabdepur Ward no. 23, P.S. - Sitamarhi Town, District - Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Joint Director (Shashya), Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
-cum-conducting Officer.
5. The District Agriculture Officer, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeeb Kumar Sanju, Advocate
Mr. Bhaskar Sandilya, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad (GP-14)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-01-2026

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

he has filed three interlocutory applications. He submits that

I.A. No.1 of 2004 has become infructuous as he is not pressing

the same. He further submits that I.A. No.2 of 2024 was

disposed off vide order dated 27.08.2024 but in the order sheet it

has not been explicitly expressed. He further submits that I.A.

No.3 of 2024 has been disposed off on 01.07.2025.

2. Learned Counsel for the State has agreed on
Patna High Court CWJC No.5300 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
2/9

the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

3. As such, both Counsel jointly submit that in the

light of the situation described above, this case is fully ready for

hearing on the point of admission.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and

learned Counsel for the State.

5. The present writ petition has been filed for

seeking direction to quash the departmental proceeding against

the petitioner by virtue of notice issued under Memo No.862

dated 16.10.2020 (Annexure-14). The further prayer to quash

letter No.60/GO dated 22.06.2020 (Annexure-13) by which the

respondent No.6, Joint Director (Shashya)-cum-Conducting

Officer has forwarded his enquiry report to respondent No.3 in

the proceeding against the petitioner. Further prayer to quash the

order issued by the respondent No.3, the Director Agriculture,

Bihar, Patna, under Memo No.247 dated 27.05.2016 (Annexure-

4) by which he has granted sanction for prosecution against the

petitioner in Vigilance Case No.44 of 2016. The further prayer,

which has been added by virtue of I.A. No.2 of 2024, for

quashing the order of punishment (Annexure-1 of I.A. No.2 of

2024) issued under Memo No.582 dated 19.07.2024 by

respondent No.3, the Director Agriculture Bihar, Patna, by
Patna High Court CWJC No.5300 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
3/9

which petitioner was dismissed. Further prayer which has been

allowed vide I.A. No.3 of 2024 to quash letter No.2(go)C-02-

176/2015 (part) 1001 dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure-4 of I.A.

No.3 of 2024) by which the Memorial dated 06.09.2024 against

the order of dismissal dated 19.07.2024 has been rejected.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

the entire proceeding is absolutely defective and has been

passed in gross violation of the established law of the land. He

submits that the charge memo which is Annexure-4, has not

been issued in compliance of Rule 17(3) of the Bihar

Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,

2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCA Rules, 2005’). He

further submits that in the enquiry report neither the

complainant has been examined or cross-examined nor any

other material with regard to allegation against the petitioner

has been produced before the enquiry Officer. He further

submits that the Director, Agriculture Department, Government

of Bihar, Patna has directed to take action against the petitioner

who is not the competent authority as the petitioner belongs to

Group-B post and the Director also. Therefore, he submits that

the entire proceedings, which are conducted by the Director

being the Disciplinary Authority is bad-in-law. He relied on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5300 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
4/9

case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and

Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and in the case of Rajesh

Kumar Sharma Vs. the State of Bihar reported in 2023(1)

PLJR 511. He submits that in the present case there are gross

violation of Rule 17(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005 as neither any

material evidence nor any cross-examination took place without

which no charge can be proved against the petitioner. Violation

of Rule 18(3) has also been made. He further submits that the

Reviewing Authority has also not considered the points taken by

the delinquent and, hence, he submits that the entire proceeding

should be vitiated as it is bad-in-law. He submits that since

proceeding is bad-in-law, therefore, the petitioner be reinstated

in service with a direction for payment of all his arrears within a

fix period of time.

7. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other

hand, submits that the charge memo has been issued completely

in accordance with law. He also submits that the order which

was alleged to be passed by the Director has been duly approved

by the competent Minister. There is no jurisdictional error in the

order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order

passed by the Reviewing Authority. He fairly submits that it is

true that evidence of Complainant is not on the record. He also
Patna High Court CWJC No.5300 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
5/9

submits that in the light of Roop Singh Negi (supra) when

evidence has not been taken and list of witnesses has also not

been provided. But in support of his argument, he relied in the

case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Rajit Singh reported in

(2022) 2 PLJR 196 whose paragraphs 8 and 9 are relevant and

submits that it is well settled legal proposition that once the

Court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that

enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court cannot reinstate

the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the

disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the

point that it is stood vitiated, and conclude the same.

8. Upon hearing the parties, there are two

documents which are very much relevant to decide this case.

The first is Annexure-9, i.e., notification contained in Memo

No.105 dated 25.01.2017, issued from the Cabinet Secretariat,

Government of Bihar, whose paragraph-8 is very much clear

that for Group-B categories, the Competent Authority who can

initiate the disciplinary proceeding shall be the Principal

Secretary or the Departmental Minister through Secretary of the

Department. Counsel submits that all the letters, charge memo

decision to initiate departmental proceeding, decision to initiate

the enquiry proceeding everything has been done not either by
Patna High Court CWJC No.5300 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
6/9

the Principal Secretary or any Secretary Level Officers rather it

was done at the level of Director of the Department, who is not

the Secretary in the eye of law and, therefore, the entire

proceeding which has been defective one and not initiated from

the competent authority. The another relevant point which is

also important that in the Charge Memo which is technically

defective due to non-issuance by the competent authority as

well as name of the list of witnesses are no where. It is

important to note that for the amendment in the charge,

corrigendum in the charge has been issued in the year 2018,

enquiry has been conducted in 2020, but the change of law,

namely, Bihar Framing of Article of Charge Against

Government Servant Regulation, 2017 has not been taken care

of. No evidence of the person, who made allegations, has been

taken and there is a gross violation of Roop Singh Negi

(supra). It is due to this reason, this Court is of the firm view

that the entire decision to proceed the departmental proceeding

is absolutely bad-in-law and not sustainable. The judgment,

which has been relied by Counsel for the respondent, i.e., State

of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Rajit Singh whose paragraphs 8 and 9

are relevant are as follows:-

“8. It appears from the order
passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal also
Patna High Court CWJC No.5300 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
7/9

observed that the enquiry proceedings were
against the principles of natural justice in as
much as the documents mentioned in the
charge-sheet were not at all supplied to the
delinquent officer. As per the settled
proposition of law, in a case where it is
found that the enquiry is not conducted
properly and/or the same is in violation of
the principles of natural justice, in that case,
the Court cannot reinstate the employee as
such and the matter is to be remanded to the
Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to
proceed further with the enquiry from the
stage of violation of principles of natural
justice is noticed and the enquiry has to be
proceeded further after furnishing the
necessary documents mentioned in the
charge-sheet, which are alleged to have not
been given to the delinquent officer in the
instant case. In the case of Chairman, Life
Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.
vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530,
which was also pressed into service on
behalf of the appellants before the High
Court, it is observed in paragraph 16 as
under:-
“16. It is a settled legal
proposition, that once the court sets aside an
order of punishment, on the ground that the
enquiry was not properly conducted, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5300 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
8/9

court cannot reinstate the employee. It must
remit the case concerned to the disciplinary
authority for it to conduct the enquiry from
the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude
the same. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar
[(1993)4 SCC 727), Hiran Mayee
Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for Girls
((2002)10 SCC 293), U.P. State Spg. Co.
Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey [(2005)8 SCC 264] and
Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008)12 SCC
30])."
9. From the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that when the aforesaid
submission and the aforesaid decision was
pressed into service, the High Court has not
considered the same on the ground that the
other officers involved in respect of the same
incident are exonerated and/or no action is
taken against them. Applying the law laid
down in the case of A. Masilamani (supra)
to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the
opinion that the Tribunal as well as the High
Court ought to have remanded the matter to
the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the
enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated.
Therefore, the order passed by the High
Court in not allowing further proceedings
from the stage it stood vitiated, le., after the
issuance of the charge-sheet, is
Patna High Court CWJC No.5300 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
9/9

unsustainable.”
9. In the light of the said decision and the

observations made with regard to incompetency of the

disciplinary proceeding, this Court hereby set aside the notice

issued under Memo No.862 dated 16.10.2020 (Annexure-14),

letter No.60/GO dated 22.06.2020 (Annexure-13), the order

issued under Memo No.247 dated 27.05.2016 (Annexure-4),

the order of punishment (Annexure-1 of I.A. No.2 of 2024)

issued under Memo No.582 dated 19.07.2024 and letter

No.2(go)C-02-176/2015 (part) 1001 dated 06.12.2024

(Annexure-4 of I.A. No.3 of 2024), but this Court is not

restraining the respondent authority to proceed afresh for the

wrong done by him on the ground of technical reasons. It is

well within the power of the employer that if employee commits

wrong then the authority is competent to proceed by way of

fresh proceeding, in accordance with law, but every such

proceeding must be completed within the stipulated period of

nine months only.

(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.01.2026
Transmission Date

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…