Patna High Court
Kaushal Kumar PrasadversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The punishment order, issued on the Governor’s authority, was valid and did not violate Article 311(1) or the applicable service rules.
Summary
The petitioner, a District Programme Officer, was charged with irregularities in Anganwadi centres and faced departmental punishment that downgraded his pay, barred salary increments for five years, and denied suspension pay. He challenged the original punishment order dated 15‑03‑2012, its modification on 27‑07‑2012, and the rejection of his appeal on 21‑02‑2017, arguing that the show‑cause notice and punishment were issued by officials of equal or lower rank, violating the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and Article 311(1) of the Constitution. The respondents contended that the punishment was valid as it was issued on the Governor’s order under Article 166(2) and complied with the applicable rules. The Court examined Supreme Court precedents establishing that disciplinary proceedings may be initiated by lower‑rank officers but the final order must be passed by the appointing authority or a higher one. Finding that the punishment order bore the Governor’s authority and thus satisfied constitutional requirements, the Court held the petitioner’s contentions unsubstantiated. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a departmental show‑cause notice and punishment can be issued by an officer of equal or lower rank than the appointee under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.
- Whether the order of punishment passed by the Joint Director, on the Governor’s order, complies with Article 311(1) and Article 166(2) of the Constitution.
- Whether the modification of the punishment after the petitioner’s retirement was lawful.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- departmental punishment
- disciplinary proceedings
- Article 311
- appointment authority
- show cause notice
- Bihar Government Servants Rules
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5303 of 2017
======================================================
Kaushal Kumar Prasad son of late Anjani Kumar Prasad resident of Sheo
Shankar Complex, near Shashi Complex, Exhibition Road, Police Station -
Kotwali, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
Patna, Bihar.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
3. The Director, I.C.D.S. , Patna.
4. The Joint Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Patna.
5. The Deputy Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Patna.
6. The Joint Director, Social Welfare Department, Patna.
7. The I.T. Manager, Social Welfare Department, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
9. The Accountant General, Bihar Veer Chand Patel Marg, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7
Mr. Abhinav Ashok, AC to GA-7
For the Accountant General : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V JUDGMENT
Date : 14-05-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application
challenging the order of punishment dated 15.3.2012 passed
under the signature of the Joint Director, Headquarter, Social
Welfare Department, whereby the petitioner was imposed with
a punishment of (i) downgrading of pay by one Grade-pay and
Patna High Court CWJC No.5303 of 2017 dt.14-05-2026
2/9
reverting the same to basic pay; (ii) the petitioner would not
get any enhancement of salary for the next five (5) years and;
(iii) the petitioner would not be paid any amount for the
period of suspension besides the subsistence allowance.
3. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside
the modified order of punishment dated 27.7.2012 whereby
the petitioner was imposed with the following punishment (i)
downgrading of the salary of the petitioner by one Grade-pay
to the basic pay; (ii) stoppage of one increment payable from
November, 2012 with cumulative effect and; (iii) No amount
would be payable besides the subsistence allowance for the
period of suspension.
4. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated
21.2.2017 passed by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Bihar whereby the appeal preferred by the
petitioner was rejected.
5. The case of the petitioner in brief is that while
posted as the District Programme Officer in Gaya, he was
served with the memo of charge in Prapatra-ka on 13.6.2009
which related to different irregularities found in three
Anganwadi Centres. The petitioner filed his reply on
23.5.2011 and the enquiry proceeded which ended in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5303 of 2017 dt.14-05-2026
3/9
Conducting Officer submitting his enquiry report dated
31.10.2011. In his report, while the first charge was found to
be partly proved, the second charge was found to be proved.
6. The petitioner was served with a second show
cause on 11.1.2012 along with a copy of the enquiry report to
which the petitioner filed his reply on 22.1.2012. The
respondents came out with an order of punishment dated
15.3.2012 as stated above.
7. In the meantime, the petitioner retired in
November, 2012.
8. After retirement of the petitioner, the order of
punishment was modified by order dated 27.7.2012 passed by
the Joint Secretary.
9. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was
rejected by the Principal Secretary by his order dated
21.2.2017.
10. It is the order of punishment dated 15.3.2012,
the modified order of punishment dated 27.7.2012 and the
order dated 21.2.2017 rejecting the appeal preferred by the
petitioner which are under challenge in the instant writ
application.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it
Patna High Court CWJC No.5303 of 2017 dt.14-05-2026
4/9
was the Deputy Secretary, Social Welfare Department, who
had issued the second show cause notice on 11.1.2012 to the
petitioner. The rank of the Deputy Secretary being same as the
petitioner who is the District Programme Officer, it is clearly
in violation of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the C.C.A Rules’). It is further submitted that the order of
punishment has been passed by the Joint Director whereas the
appointing authority of the petitioner is the Principal
Secretary. Further the modified order of punishment would
show that it was at the instance of the Conducting Officer that
the order of punishment was modified. Learned counsel
submits that all these are in violation of the C.C.A. Rules as
also not sustainable in view of the judgment of this Court
dated 28.7.2021 passed in CWJC no.7027 of 2018 (Bhushan
Kumar Singh vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.).
12. In response, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the proceeding against the petitioner has been
carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the
C.C.A. Rules. So far as the contention with respect to the
order of the punishment having been passed by the Joint
Director is concerned, which as per the petitioner is below the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5303 of 2017 dt.14-05-2026
5/9
rank of the petitioner, learned counsel submits that a perusal
of the order of punishment would show that the same has been
passed on the orders of the Governor. This was in accordance
with Article 166(2) of the Constitution. Learned counsel
submits that the petitioner has not been able to point out any
illegalities in any of the orders impugned nor in the procedure
in conduct of the departmental proceeding. As such the writ
application be dismissed.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
14. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner
who at the relevant time was the District Programme Officer,
was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding by
serving a memo of charge on 13.6.2009. The charge related to
irregularities found in three Anganwadi centres in Kutch
Block in the surprise inspection conducted by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Tekari.
15. An enquiry was conducted by the Conducting
Officer who submitted his enquiry report finding charge no.1
to be partially proved and charge no.2 to be proved.
16. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the
petitioner who filed his reply to the same.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5303 of 2017 dt.14-05-2026
6/9
17. The respondents came out with the order of
punishment dated 15.3.2012, as stated above. Subsequently,
on the objection raised by the Accountant General, Bihar, as to
how the punishment would be imposed, as the petitioner was
scheduled to retire on 30.11.2012, a modified order of
punishment was passed on 27.7.2012.
18. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was
rejected by order dated 21.2.2017 passed by the Principal
Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar.
19. With respect to the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner that the second show cause notice on
11.1.2012 was issued by the Deputy Secretary, a person of the
rank similar to that of the petitioner who was the District
Programme Officer and that the order of punishment was
passed by the Joint Director whereas the appointing authority
of the petitioner is the Principal Secretary, it would be relevant
to refer to a few judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on
the subject.
20. In the case of State of U.P. & Anr. vs.
Chandrapal Singh & Anr.; (2003) 4 SCC 670, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as follows :
“5. This Court in State of M.P. v.
Shardul Singh [(1970) 1 SCC 108] has held
Patna High Court CWJC No.5303 of 2017 dt.14-05-2026
7/9
that Article 311(1) provides that no person
who is a member of the civil service of the
Union or State shall be dismissed or removed
by an authority subordinate to that by which
he was appointed. However, that article does
not in terms require that the authority
empowered under that provision to dismiss or
remove an official should itself initiate or
conduct enquiry proceeding.
8. Thus, looking to the terms and
content of Article 311(1) of the Constitution, it
does not follow that even initiation or conduct
of inquiry proceedings should be by that
authority itself, which is empowered to dismiss
or remove an official under the said article,
unless there is an express rule governing the
official requiring it to be so.”
21. In the case of Union of India & Ors. vs.
Hasmukhbhai Hirabhai Rana; (2006) 12 SCC 373, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :
“7. There is no dispute that the
departmental proceeding can be initiated by a
person lower in rank than the appointing
authority. But the final order can be passed
only by the appointing authority or an
authority higher than it. The law relating to
initiation (sic of disciplinary proceeding) by a
person lower in rank than the authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.5303 of 2017 dt.14-05-2026
8/9
competent to pass final order has been the
subject-matter of adjudication in many cases.
(See State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh [(1970) 1
SCC 108] and State of U.P. v. Chandrapal
Singh [(2003) 4 SCC 670 : 2003 SCC (L&S)
556] .)”
22. In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence
& Ors. vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha; (2012) 11 SCC 565,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :
“4. The legal proposition has been laid
down by this Court while interpreting the
provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of
India that the removal and dismissal of a
delinquent on misconduct must be by the
authority not below the appointing authority.
However, it does not mean that disciplinary
proceedings may not be initiated against the
delinquent by the authority lower than the
appointing authority.”
23. Coming to the facts of the instant case, the order
of punishment dated 15.3.2012 (Annexure-7) though issued
under the signature of the Joint Director, but the same clearly
states that the same has been issued on the order of the
Governor, Bihar. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the judgments, relevant portion of which
Patna High Court CWJC No.5303 of 2017 dt.14-05-2026
9/9
has been cited herein above together with the order of
punishment having been passed on the orders of the Governor,
Bihar, the Court finds no substance in the contentions raised
on behalf of the petitioner nor any merit in the instant writ
application.
24. The writ application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 13.02.2026
Uploading Date 14.05.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.