Suresh Prasad MalakarversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5989 of 2022
     ======================================================
     Suresh Prasad Malakar Son of Late Guru Sahai Mali, Resident of Village-
     Rani Hatti, Post Office - Kadirganj, Police Station- Nawadah, District- -
     Nawadah, at present residing at Flat No. - C/5, Block - A, Shambhawi
     Enclave, Bhootnath Road, B.H.Colony, Police Station- Agamkuan, District-
     Patna - 800026.

                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                      Versus

1.   The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
     Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Additional Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar,
     Patna.
3.   The Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar,
     Patna.
4.   The Under Secretary to the Government, Bihar, Patna.
5.   The Commisioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
6.   The District Magistrate, Gaya.
7.   The Additional Collector, Departmental Enquiry-Cum-Conducting Officer,
     Gaya.
8.   The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gaya.
9.   The Appellate Authority and Revisional Tribunal-Cum-Hon'ble Minister,
     Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s   :     Mr.Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate

     For the Respondent/s   :     Mr.Raj Kishore Roy ( GP 18 )

     ======================================================

     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

                                ORAL JUDGMENT

      Date : 28-01-2026
                Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

      counsel for the State.

                    2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking
Patna High Court CWJC No.5989 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
                                           2/12




         relief setting aside the order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the

         Appellate Authority and the Revisional Tribunal-cum-Hon’ble

         Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government

         of Bihar, Patna (Annexure -P/1), whereby the review petition

         filed by the petitioner has been rejected. A further prayer has

         been made for setting aside the order of dismissal dated

         07.09.2015, issued vide Memo No. 1041 (Annexure-P/2), by

         which the petitioner was dismissed from service under the

         provisions of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification,

         Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the

         “Rules of 2005”). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of

         the Memo of Charge contained in Memo No. 185 dated

         25.04.2014 (Annexure- P/3), on the ground that the same was

         issued in gross violation of the Bihar Framing of Charge-Sheets

         against Government Servants Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter

         referred to as the “Regulations of 2011”). Further, the petitioner

         has prayed for reinstatement in service with all consequential

         benefits, including payment of arrears of salary and other

         admissible dues, to which the petitioner would be entitled upon

         setting aside of the aforesaid impugned orders.

                      3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

         petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant
Patna High Court CWJC No.5989 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
                                           3/12




         Consolidation Officer on the recommendation of the then Bihar

         Subordinate Services Selection Board, and subsequently, during

         the course of his service, he was promoted to the post of Circle

         Officer. While the petitioner was posted as Circle Officer,

         Manpur, Gaya, a criminal case, namely Vigilance P.S. Case No.

         66 of 2013 dated 08.10.2013, was registered against him under

         Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the

         Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the allegation of having

         accepted a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from one Anup Lal Mehta.

         Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was arrested

         in the said case and was placed under suspension vide order

         dated 05.12.2013, as contained in Memo No. 976, with effect

         from 08.10.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted bail vide

         order dated 24.01.2014 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.

         3324 of 2014. Upon his release from custody, the petitioner’s

         suspension was revoked with effect from 29.01.2014. However,

         since the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed while

         accepting a bribe of Rs. 5,000/-, he was again placed under

         suspension vide order dated 05.03.2014, as contained in Memo

         No. 94, issued by the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land

         Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (Annexure-

         P/7 to the writ petition). Thereafter, the Under Secretary to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5989 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
                                           4/12




         Government issued a letter bearing Letter No. 185 dated

         25.04.2014, along with Prapatra-‘K’, calling upon the petitioner

         to submit his show-cause reply within 15 days in respect of the

         three charges mentioned therein.

                      4. Learned counsel further submits that the said

         Prapatra-‘K’, which is in the nature of a Memo of Charge, is

         wholly defective and not in conformity with the Regulation of

         2011. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted his

         defence, categorically denying all the allegations levelled

         against him. The petitioner also appeared before the Enquiry

         Officer, who, upon conclusion of the enquiry, found the first and

         third charges partially proved, while the second charge was held

         to be fully proved.

                      5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

         that a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner,

         whereby he was called upon to submit his response with respect

         to the enquiry report. Thereafter, an order of punishment was

         imposed upon the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits

         that, being aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the

         petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court; however, the writ

         petition was disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to avail

         the remedy of review. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred
Patna High Court CWJC No.5989 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
                                           5/12




         a review application before the Appellate Authority -cum-

         Revisional Tribunal- cum- Hon’ble Minister, Revenue and Land

         Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. The review

         application was decided vide order dated 05.01.2022, whereby

         the order of punishment was affirmed. Thereafter, the petitioner

         has assailed the order of punishment dated 07.09.2015, the

         review order dated 05.01.2022, as well as the Memo of Charge

         dated 25.04.2014, in the present writ petition.

                      6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

         charge memo dated 25.04.2014 itself is bad in law and not in

         accordance with the then applicable Regulations of 2011. In

         support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner

         places reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Raj

         Kumar v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2024 (2) BLJ

         499, and submits that in the said case, although the charge was

         found to be in violation of the Regulations of 2017 and not the

         Regulation of 2011 but Hon’ble Court categorically held that

         when the charge memo itself is defective, then any subsequent

         proceeding initiated on the basis of such defective charge memo

         would vitiate the entire departmental proceeding. He further

         submits that, in the present case, the charge memo is not in

         accordance with the Regulations of 2011 and, therefore, any
Patna High Court CWJC No.5989 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
                                           6/12




         subsequent proceeding conducted on the basis thereof is liable

         to be set aside as the entire departmental proceeding stands

         vitiated.

                      7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

         that he has annexed the entire order-sheet of the Enquiry

         Officer, which clearly demonstrates that not a single witness

         was examined during the course of the enquiry. It is further

         submitted that the Presenting Officer did not participate in the

         day-to-day proceedings and appeared only on the last date of the

         enquiry. According to learned counsel, since the Presenting

         Officer failed to discharge his statutory role, the enquiry stood

         vitiated on this ground alone and, consequently, the enquiry

         report ought not to have been relied upon. In support of the said

         contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment

         rendered in Md. Giaaul Hak v. State of Bihar and Others in

         CWJC No. 25445 of 2019.

                      8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

         that another aspect, which goes to the very root of the matter

         and is fatal to the departmental proceeding, is that at the time of

         issuance of the second show cause notice, the Disciplinary

         Authority did not record any disagreement or variation with the

         findings of the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that although it is
Patna High Court CWJC No.5989 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
                                           7/12




         well within the power of the Disciplinary Authority to differ

         from or vary the findings of the Enquiry Officer, such

         disagreement must be expressly recorded with reasons.

         According to learned counsel, in the present case, Charge Nos. 1

         and 2 were         only partially proved by the Enquiry Officer,

         whereas Charge No. 2 alone was proved. However, prior to

         passing the order of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority

         neither recorded any finding disagreeing with the Enquiry

         Officer nor assigned reasons for treating Charge Nos. 1 and 2 as

         proved in entirety, and yet proceeded to impose punishment.

         This action, according to him is wholly illegal and bad in law. In

         support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the

         petitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered by this

         Hon’ble Court in Nageshwar Sharma v. State of Bihar and

         Others, reported in 2024 (1) BLJ 486, and Anil Kumar Lal v.

         State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2025 (4) PLJR 213, and

         submits that where the charge memo does not contain a list of

         witnesses and where the charge memo as well as the enquiry

         report are prepared without leading any evidence, there is a

         gross violation of Rule 17(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005 rendering

         the entire disciplinary proceeding unsustainable in the eyes of

         law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5989 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
                                           8/12




                      9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

         emphasizes that a detailed reply to the second show cause notice

         was duly submitted; however, the same was neither considered

         by the Disciplinary Authority nor by the Reviewing Authority.

         In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is submitted

         that the entire departmental proceeding suffers from serious

         procedural infirmities and, therefore, stands vitiated and is liable

         to be set aside.

                      10. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,

         submits that there is neither any procedural lacuna nor any

         violation of the principles of natural justice, nor is there any

         allegation of disproportionate or exorbitant punishment in the

         present case. He submits that the charge memo was issued

         strictly in accordance with the Regulations of 2011. It is further

         submitted that after receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner

         duly participated in the enquiry proceedings. Prior to

         commencement of the enquiry, the petitioner submitted his show

         cause reply, which was duly considered, and thereafter the final

         enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer in the

         presence of the Presenting Officer.

                      10.1 Learned counsel for the State further submits

         that upon due consideration of the charge memo, the enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.5989 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
                                           9/12




         report, the second show cause notice, and the reply filed by the

         petitioner, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled

         against him. Consequently, upon proof of the charges, the

         Disciplinary Authority decided to impose the punishment of

         dismissal from service, which was inflicted vide order dated

         07.09.2015, as contained in Memo No. 1041, under Rules 14, 17

         and 18 of the CCA Rules, 2005. It is further submitted that the

         petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority;

         however, the Appellate Authority did not find any merit in the

         appeal/review and, accordingly, the same was dismissed.

                      11. In response to the submissions advanced by

         learned counsel for the respondent-State, learned counsel for the

         petitioner submits that a supplementary affidavit has been filed,

         wherein the judgment of acquittal dated 25.07.2024, passed in

         Special Case No. 68 of 2013 by the learned Special Judge,

         Vigilance, Patna, has been brought on record as Annexure-P/26.

         The said judgment arises out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 66 of

         2013, registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section

         13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which

         constitutes the very genesis of the present departmental

         proceeding. He further submits that the petitioner has been

         acquitted in the said vigilance case after full contest and,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5989 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
                                          10/12




         therefore, this crucial aspect also deserves due consideration by

         this Hon’ble Court.

                      12. After hearing the parties and upon scrutiny of the

         charge memo, this Court, in the context of the contention that

         the charge memo was not issued in accordance with Rule 17(3)

         read with the Regulations of 2011, finds that the allegations

         contained in a charge memo are required to be proved by

         evidence. Such evidence may be of two kinds, namely, oral and

         documentary. In certain cases, the charges may be proved by

         both oral and documentary evidence, while in some cases, the

         charges may be proved either by oral evidence alone or by

         documentary evidence alone, depending upon the nature of the

         allegations. The sufficiency, admissibility, and probative value

         of such evidence are matters to be tested during the course of

         the enquiry.

                      13. Merely because the State proposes to rely upon

         documentary evidence to prove the charges, without indicating

         oral evidence at the stage of issuance of the charge memo, it

         cannot be said that the charge memo is defective. Under the

         Regulations of 2011, there is no prescribed pro forma mandating

         a format similar to that provided under any subsequent

         regulations. Therefore, on this ground, this Court does not
Patna High Court CWJC No.5989 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
                                          11/12




         accept the contention of the petitioner that the charge memo

         suffers from any inherent defect. Consequently, the prayer for

         quashing the charge memo is hereby rejected.

                      14. Proving of allegations by virtue of evidence either

         oral or documentary is a matter of judicial scrutiny about which

         the petitioner has raised his contentions in the second show-

         cause reply. It transpires from the record that neither the

         Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority has taken

         into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner in

         response to the second show-cause notice. It further transpires

         that the Reviewing Authority has also failed to consider the

         second show-cause reply altogether. Therefore, on the limited

         ground of non consideration of the second show-cause reply,

         this Court hereby sets aside the order dated 07.09.2015, issued

         vide Memo No. 1041 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Principal

         Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna

         (Annexure/ P/2) and order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the

         Appellate       Authority-cum-Revisional     Tribunal-cum-Hon’ble

         Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government

         of Bihar, Patna (Annexure-P/1) and remands the matter to the

         Disciplinary Authority to consider the case afresh and to pass a

         reasoned and speaking order, after due consideration of all the
             Patna High Court CWJC No.5989 of 2022 dt.28-01-2026
                                                       12/12




                      points raised in the second show-cause reply. In case the

                      petitioner has been exonerated, the Disciplinary Authority shall

                      also decide the entitlement of the petitioner i.e. payment of his

                      arrear and other dues but in case the Disciplinary Authority

                      passed order against the petitioner then in that case the

                      petitioner shall be at liberty to challenged the same before the

                      Appellate Authority/Revisional Authority. The petitioner shall

                      be at liberty to raise all other permissible grounds, except the

                      charge.

                                   15. With the aforesaid observations and directions,

                      the writ petition stands disposed of.


                                                  (Dr. Anshuman, J)

Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          30/01/2026
Transmission Date