Sujit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5471 of 2025
     ======================================================
     Sujit Kumar Son of Ravindra Prasad, resident of Mohalla Mathiya Zirat,
     Police Station-Motihari (Town), District-East Champaran.


                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                      Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
     Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.   The Regional Deputy Director, Trihut Division, Muzaffarpur.
4.   The District Education Officer, District-Sitamarhi.
5.   The District Education Officer, District-Sheohar.


                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
                                   Mr.Virendra Kuar, Advocate
     For the State          :      Mr. K.K. Singh, AC to GP 22
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
                        CAV JUDGMENT
      Date : 17-01-2026
                   The petitioner is an employee of the Education

     Department posted in the Office of the District Education Officer

     at Motihari. He has filed the instant writ petition invoking the

     jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for issuance

     of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the

     departmental proceeding initiated against him on the basis of the

     memorandum of charge, as the departmental authority has

     hopelessly failed to prove the proceeding against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
                                           2/8




                    2. The factual aspect that gives rise to the instant writ

       petition is as follows:-

                    On 01.02.2021, one Gulabudin made a complaint before

       the Additional Superintendent of Police-cum-SHO, Vigilance

       Investigation Bureau, Patna, Bihar, alleging, inter alia, that he was

       posted as a Peon at Madarsa Islamia Dariapur in the District of

       East Champaran. He deposited all documents for issuance of

       salary slip in the office of the District Education Officer. The

       District Education Officer, Motihari, asked him to talk to the

       petitioner for issuance of the salary slip. The petitioner demanded

       a bribe of a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for issuance of the salary slip. The

       concerned employee made a complaint before the Vigilance

       Investigation Bureau making the said allegation. The petitioner

       was arrested by a trap team constituted by the Vigilance

       Investigation Bureau on 11.02.2021, red-handed while receiving a

       bribe of Rs. 15,000/-. The petitioner was taken into custody and

       Vigilance P.S. Case No. 06 of 2021 was registered against him

       under Section 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said

       criminal case is still pending before the competent criminal court.

       As the petitioner was arrested in connection with a criminal case,

       he was put under suspension with effect from 12.02.2021.

       Subsequently, he was released on bail and his suspension was
Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
                                           3/8




       revoked. The petitioner was allowed to join in the office of the

       District Education Officer, Motihari, on 11th October 2021.

       Subsequently, he was again put under suspension vide Memo No.

       1602 dated 30th November 2021. On 07th February 2022,

       departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by a

       memorandum of charge, and the District Education Officer,

       Sitamarhi, was appointed as Inquiry Officer, and the District

       Programme Officer, East Champaran, Motihari, was appointed as

       Presenting Officer. The memorandum of charge was supplied to

       the delinquent employee by the Inquiry Officer, and he was

       directed to submit a statement of defence against the memorandum

       of charge. It is contended by Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior

       Counsel for the petitioner, that the memorandum of charge was not

       framed as per Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government Servants

       (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,           2005. In the

       memorandum of charge, no list of witnesses was appended. In the

       list of documents, only reference to three internal letters was made.

                    3. During the disciplinary proceeding, the respondent

       authority did not produce any evidence or examine any witness in

       support of the imputation of charge. The Inquiry Officer finally

       submitted his report to the effect that the department failed to

       prove the charge of misconduct against the petitioner, as the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
                                           4/8




       department failed to examine any witness. As a result, the Inquiry

       Officer submitted his report advising the department to initiate

       departmental proceeding against the petitioner awaiting the final

       outcome of the criminal case.

                    4. The disciplinary authority, however, did not accept

       such report of the Inquiry Officer and he sent back the said inquiry

       report to the District Education Officer for reconsideration of the

       charge levelled against the petitioner. The District Education

       Officer submitted the same report again to the disciplinary

       authority.

                    5. The disciplinary authority then changed the Inquiry

       Officer, and the District Education Officer, Seohar, was freshly

       appointed as the Inquiry Officer, and the District Project Officer,

       East Champaran, was appointed as the Presenting Officer, and a

       fresh inquiry was directed to be initiated against the petitioner on

       the same charge. The newly appointed Inquiry Officer submitted

       the same report as his predecessor on the ground that the

       department failed to examine any witness in support of the charge.

       The departmental authority refused to accept the third inquiry

       report and set up an inquiry against the petitioner for the fourth

       time.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
                                           5/8




                    6. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the

       petitioner that the departmental authority, who is respondent no. 2

       in the instant writ petition, viz., the Regional Deputy Director of

       Education, Tirhut Division, Motihari, was over-biased against the

       petitioner and is bent upon punishing the petitioner in the

       departmental proceeding even without examination of any witness.

       The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also refers to

       paragraph no. 16 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 3,

       wherein he admitted that the criminal case against the petitioner

       has not yet been concluded and is not likely to be concluded soon.

                    7. The learned Advocate for the State respondents has

       practically admitted the factual position involved in the instant

       case.

                    8. I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner

       and the respondents at length.

                    9. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 17 of the Bihar Government

       Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, makes

       out a detailed provision with regard to the framing of articles of

       charge, which shall be in four parts, as hereunder:–

                    i) In first part, the personal information of the concerned

       Government servant shall be recorded.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
                                           6/8




                    ii) Second part shall contain the substance of the

       imputation of misconduct or misbehavior as a definite and distinct

       articles of charge.

                    iii) third part shall contain a statement of the imputation

       on misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge,

       which shall contain a statement of all relevant facts including any

       admission or confession made by the Government Servant.

                    iv) fourth part shall contain list of such documents by

       which, and a list of such witnesses by whom, the articles of

       charges are proposed to be sustained. When the memorandum of

       charge in a departmental proceeding is without list of witnesses,

       charge memo itself a statement of the imputations of misconduct

       or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall

       contain- is violative of principles of natural justice because the

       delinquent employee has every right and authority to know the

       witnesses by whom the departmental authority proposes to prove

       the charge.

                    10. In the instant case, the materials on record clearly

       suggest that the Inquiry Officers submitted the same and identical

       reports against the petitioner on three occasions, stating that the

       departmental authority failed to produce any witness and that the

       charge of misconduct, in the form of taking a bribe by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
                                           7/8




       petitioner, has not been proved. It is not in dispute that the criminal

       case on the same charge is pending. From the admission made by

       the respondents in the counter-affidavit, it is ascertained that there

       is no assurance as to when the criminal case shall be concluded. In

       view of such circumstances, a departmental proceeding cannot be

       kept pending for years together, even after submission of reports

       by the Inquiry Officers in favour of the petitioner, on the ground

       that the report of the Inquiry Officer is not to the liking of the

       departmental authority. It is needless to mention that a

       memorandum of charge without any list of witnesses suffers from

       vagueness, and the departmental proceeding on the basis of such

       vague and ambiguous charge, where no list of witnesses was cited,

       is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the departmental proceeding

       initiated against the petitioner is held to be dehors procedure, and

       the same is liable to be quashed.

                    11. For the reasons stated above, the instant writ petition

       is allowed on contest. The departmental proceeding initiated

       against the petitioner, i.e., Sujit Kumar, an employee of the

       Education Department is directed to be quashed. The respondent

       authority, specially respondent no. 2, however, is at liberty to take

       necessary departmental action against the petitioner, if he is
             Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
                                                        8/8




                    convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 7(A) of the

                    Prevention of Corruption Act, by the competent criminal court.

                                 12. The instant writ petition is thus, allowed on contest.



                                                (Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

Suraj Dubey/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                12.01.2026
Uploading Date          19.01.2026
Transmission Date       19.01.2026