Patna High Court
Raj Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court set aside the order dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds and directed the authority to decide the appeal on merits, condoning the delay.
Summary
The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, challenged a departmental punishment order dated 6 May 2022 and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal on the ground of limitation. He argued that the charge memo and enquiry were flawed and that his appeal, filed 45 days late, should be condoned. The High Court examined whether the rejection of the appeal under Rule 25 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, was proper. To avoid pre‑empting the merits, the Court set aside the order dated 6 March 2024 that dismissed the appeal solely on limitation grounds. It directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Police, to consider the appeal on its merits within 90 days and to condone any delay. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed with limited observation.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation under Rule 25 is legally valid.
- Whether the High Court can set aside the limitation order without deciding the merits of the disciplinary case.
- Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and the appeal decided on merits.
Subjects
- departmental punishment
- service law
- limitation
- Rule 25
- Bihar Government Servants Rules
- appeal
- condonation of delay
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5495 of 2024
======================================================
Raj Kumar Sah son of Late Sri Bishwanath Sah, Resident of Village- Piyaur,
P.S.- M.H. Nagar, District- Siwan, presently posted as Dy. S.P. BSAP-15,
Bhim Nagar, Supaul, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar though the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar at Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Police, Patna.
4. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Additional Director General of Police, B.S.A.P., Bihar, Patna.
6. The Inspector General (I.G.) of Police, Purnea.
7. The Deputy Inspector General D.I.G.) of Police, Purnea.
8. The Deputy Inspector General (D.I.G.) of Police, Munger Range at Munger.
9. The Commandant, B.S.A.P.-15 Bagha, present Bhim Nagar, Supaul.
10. The Superintendent of Police, Purnea at Purnea.
11. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Head Quarter), Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate
Mr. Lal Babukeshri, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Government Pleader-13
Mr. Ravi Kumar (AC to GP-13)
Mr. Akshay Lal Prasad, (AC to GP-13)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-02-2026
Heard learned Senior counsel Mr. Dr. Uma Shankar
Prasad assisted by Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the
following relief/s:-
“I. For the issuance of an
Patna High Court CWJC No.5495 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
2/4
appropriate Writ to quash the
resolution issued from the Home
Department, Govt. of Bihar (Police
Branch) vide Memo No.4479 dated
6.5.2022 passing the punishment
Order against the petitioner whereby
the Order of Slander (Nindan) and
two increment of salary for
inaccumulative effect has been
stopped. (Contained in Annexure-8).
II. For the issuance of an appropriate
Order to quash the Order issued on
6.3.2024 vide Memo No.2726
whereby the appeal of the petitioner
has been dismissed on the ground of
limitation holding as time barred.
(Contained in Annexure-9).
III. For issuance of an appropriate
Writ/Order/Direction as your
Lordships may deem fit and proper
for the ends of Justice.”
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner joined service on the post of Dy. S.P. Home
Police Department, Bagaha on 26.04.2005 and his service was
regularized w.e.f. 01.07.2011. Senior counsel submits that the
petitioner while posted as City Dy. S.P. at Gaya, served a notice
dated 10.04.2019 vide Memo No. 1873 issued from the office of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5495 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
3/4
Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna to the effect that while
he was supervising K. Hat (Purnea) P.S. Case No. 333 of 2016,
certain irregularities have been made and the explanation was
demanded from the petitioner. Senior counsel submits that the
petitioner submitted his explanation, but his explanation was not
accepted and charge memo was served upon him vide Memo
No. 5021 dated 22.07.2020. Senior counsel further submits that
the charge memo further resulted into departmental enquiry in
which the petitioner was found guilty. Senior counsel submits
that after enquiry, the show cause was demanded and the
petitioner has filed his reply, but, even then, the order of
punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner vide Memo
No. 4479 dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure-P/8). Senior counsel
further submits that the petitioner thereafter, preferred a
statutory appeal against the order of punishment dated
06.05.2022, but his appeal was rejected on 06.03.2024
contained in Memo No. 2726 (Annexure-P/9).
4. Upon perusal of Annexure-P/9, it transpires that
the petitioner’s appeal/review has been rejected solely on the
ground that it was filed with a delay of 45 days and barred under
Rule 25 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5495 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
4/4
5. Pleadings have been completed. However, this
Court restrains itself from passing any order on merit, due to the
reason that passing order on the merit shall debar the petitioner
to avail one forum. Hence, this Court without entering into the
merit or demerit of the case, set aside the Annexure-P/9 i.e.
order dated 06.03.2024 contained in Memo No. 2726, whereby
the petitioner’s appeal/review has not been entertained solely on
the ground of limitation.
6. As such, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Police, Patna (Respondent no.3) is hereby directed to pass order
on merit on the petitioner’s memo of appeal/review within 90
days from the date of production of a copy of this order. The
delay if any is hereby directed to be condoned.
7. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed
with limited observation.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17/02/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.