Patna High Court
Dr. Ashok Kumar DasversusThe State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary,
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The dismissal order is set aside as the departmental enquiry was conducted without any witness examination, rendering the evidence insufficient and violating natural justice.
Summary
Dr. Ashok Kumar Das, a senior veterinary officer, was dismissed from service by memo No.56 dated 27‑02‑2017 following a departmental enquiry under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The petitioner contended that the enquiry violated Rule 17(14) because no witnesses were examined and the documents relied upon were not marked as exhibits or proved by oral evidence. The respondents argued that the enquiry complied with the rules and the petitioner was given opportunities to defend himself. The High Court examined the enquiry report and found that none of the eleven documents cited were substantiated by any witness testimony, rendering the evidence "no evidence". Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha), the Court held that the enquiry breached natural‑justice principles and the dismissal order could not stand. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the dismissal set aside with consequential benefits.
Issues considered
- Did the departmental enquiry comply with Rule 17(14) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005?
- Was the evidence relied upon by the enquiry officer sufficient to prove the charges in a disciplinary proceeding?
- Were the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the requirement of oral evidence, violated?
- Is the dismissal order liable to be set aside on the ground of lack of evidence and procedural irregularities?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 — s. Rule 17(14)
- Constitution of India — s. Article 311(2)
Subjects
- departmental enquiry
- natural justice
- dismissal
- no evidence
- CCA Rules
- procedural fairness
- government servant
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6227 of 2017
======================================================
Dr. Ashok Kumar Das Son of Late Bhagwan Das, Resident of Kasim Bazar,
P.O. - Raj Mahal, Police Station - Raj Mahal, District- Sahebganj (Jharkhand)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and
Fisheries Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Under Secretary to the Government, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Saurabh Kumar, AC to SC-19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application
praying for quashing the order contained in Memo no.56
dated 27.2.2017 issued under the signature of the Additional
Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department,
Government of Bihar, whereby the petitioner was dismissed
from service.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was
Patna High Court CWJC No. 6227 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
2/12
appointed on 12.5.1983 as Touring Veterinary Officer and was
posted at Sonva in West Singhbhum. In the year 2009, he was
promoted and posted as the District Animal Husbandry
Officer in Madhubani.
4. In between 22.4.2010 to 3.5.2010, audit
inspection was carried out for the period March, 2008-09 to
March, 2009-10 and various audit objections were pointed out
with respect to the period prior to 31.7.2009 i.e., the date the
petitioner joined. Further a complaint was made by one
Meenakshi Pandey to the Principal Secretary, Animal
Husbandry and Fisheries Department making 14 allegations
against the employees posted in the office of the District
Animal Husbandry Officer, Madhubani. Pursuant thereto a
Three Men Committee was constituted under the
Chairmanship of the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry,
Muzaffarpur, who conducted the enquiry and submitted a
report dated 9.8.2011, not giving any adverse finding against
the petitioner.
5. An explanation was sought for from the petitioner
by letter dated 23.9.2011 regarding the audit objection to
which the petitioner replied on 16.1.2012. The Regional
Director, Animal Husbandry, Darbhanga by his memo dated
Patna High Court CWJC No. 6227 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
3/12
17.2.2012 submitted compliance report of the audit objections
with his recommendation to the Accountant General.
6. By order dated 31.3.2012 of the Director, Animal
Husbandry, Bihar, a departmental proceeding was initiated
against the Head Assistant and an Accountant in the Office of
the District Animal Husbandry Officer. They were awarded
the punishment of stoppage of three increments.
7. By order dated 27.4.2012 of the Special Secretary
to the Animal Husbandry Department, the petitioner was
placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental
enquiry to be proceeded under the Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the CCA Rules’). By letter dated 25.6.2012, an
explanation was sought for on the memo of charge in Form-ka
to which the petitioner filed his reply on 16.8.2012. By order
dated 5.12.2012, the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer
were appointed and the petitioner was served with a copy of
the memo of charge.
8. The enquiry proceeding started on 19.12.2012
wherein the petitioner filed his defence statement. The
Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to the Principal
Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department on
Patna High Court CWJC No. 6227 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
4/12
29.2.2016. The petitioner was served with a copy of the
enquiry report on 15.3.2016 and asked to submit his second
written statement of defence. The petitioner submitted his
reply. By order dated 27.2.2017 issued under the orders of
Hon’ble the Governor, Bihar and under the signature of the
Under Secretary to the Government, Animal Husbandry and
Fisheries Department, the petitioner was dismissed from
service. It is against this order of dismissal that the petitioner
has preferred the instant writ application.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that the petitioner was scheduled to
superannuate on 28.2.2017 when a day before his
superannuation that he was dismissed by order dated
27.2.2017. It is submitted that the provisions contained in
Rule 17(14) of the C.C.A. Rules were not followed. Neither
the article of charges mention about the witnesses who are
proposed to be examined in course of the enquiry nor any
witness was examined in the enquiry. No document was
marked exhibit or the contents thereof proved. Nevertheless
the Enquiry officer placed his reliance on the documents in
course of his enquiry. In these circumstances, the proceeding
against the petitioner is one of no evidence.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 6227 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
5/12
10. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for
the petitioner on the judgment in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha; (2010) 2 SCC 772.
It is submitted that the order impugned dismissing the
petitioner from service be set aside and the writ application be
allowed with all consequential benefits.
11. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. It is submitted that the
departmental enquiry against the petitioner was carried out in
accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 17 of the
C.C.A Rules. The petitioner was afforded full opportunity to
defend himself and there has been no violation of the
principles of natural justice. He was given adequate
opportunity of personal hearing as well as of filing his written
defence. Learned counsel submits that several documents
were produced during enquiry and the same find mention in
the enquiry report. It is on the basis of these documents that
the charges against the petitioner were proved. The charges
are very grave, involve serious financial irregularities and of
misappropriation of Government money. The very fact that
the petitioner has not challenged the findings of the Enquiry
Officer shows that the contents of the enquiry report has been
Patna High Court CWJC No. 6227 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
6/12
admitted. The petitioner was also given opportunity of filing a
second show cause after having gone through the enquiry
report. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show
cause on 7.4.2016 and after considering the same, he was
inflicted with the punishment of dismissal. Learned counsel
submits that there is no illegality in the order impugned, no
merit in the instant application and as such the same be
dismissed.
12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on
record.
13. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner
who at the relevant time was posted as the Animal Husbandry
Officer, Madhubani was proceeded against in a departmental
proceeding conducted under the C.C.A Rules.
14. The charge against the petitioner was that
pursuant to an inspection having been done of the District
Animal Husbandry Officer, Madhubani for the period April,
2008 to March, 2010, an enquiry was conducted and a report
submitted wherein various objections were raised. As per the
charge, the allegations involved payment of Rs. 19.04 lakhs to
irregularly retained employees, difference in accounting of Rs.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 6227 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
7/12
28.32 lakhs between the accounts register and the bank
accounts, loss to the State exchequer to the tune of Rs. 3.46
lakhs, irregular withdrawal of Rs.1.82 lakhs etc., the
objections in all relating to Rs.207.32 lakhs. Pursuant to a
complaint by Smt. Meenakshi Pandey, an enquiry was got
conducted and the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry,
Darbhanga submitted his report dated 25.3.2011.
Subsequently another Three Member Committee also carried
out an inspection and submitted their report on 9.8.2011. The
charge further stated that the District Magistrate sent a letter
dated 16.8.2011 as also an enquiry report dated 5.9.2011
addressed to the Principal Secretary, Vigilance Department
holding that most of the charges had been proved.
15. The petitioner submitted his reply to the memo
of charge in the departmental proceeding.
16. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated
29.2.2016 finding charge no.1 to be partly proved and with
respect to charge no.2, it was observed that giving benefit of
doubt, the same was not proved.
17. The petitioner was served with a copy of the
enquiry report to which he submitted his reply. Thereafter the
respondents came out with an order/resolution contained in
Patna High Court CWJC No. 6227 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
8/12
memo no.56 dated 27.2.2017 under the signature of the
Additional Secretary, Animal and Fisheries Department,
Government of Bihar dismissing the petitioner from service.
18. A perusal of the memo of charge in Form-ka
brought on record as Annexure-11 to the writ application
would show that the charges mentioned therein is sought to be
proved by the 11 documents mentioned in the 4 th column of
Prapatra-ka under the heading ‘evidence’. It would be
important to note here that there is no mention of any witness
who is proposed to be examined in support of the charges.
19. On enquiry of the contents of the enquiry report
dated 29.2.2016, it further transpires that the Enquiry Officer
has taken into consideration the 11 documents which were
mentioned in Prapatra-ka. In addition to these, three more
documents find mention in the enquiry report. However on
perusal of the entire enquiry report, it transpires that not a
single witness was examined and thus none of the documents
on which the Enquiry Officer has placed reliance in coming to
the conclusion that charge no.1 was partly proved, has either
been marked exhibit or the contents thereof proved by leading
oral evidence.
20. In the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab
Patna High Court CWJC No. 6227 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
9/12
National Bank & Ors.; (2009) 2 SCC 570, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as follows :
“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a
quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer
performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges
levelled against the delinquent officer must be
found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has
a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into
consideration the materials brought on record by
the parties. The purported evidence collected
during investigation by the investigating officer
against all the accused by itself could not be
treated to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the
said documents. The management witnesses
merely tendered the documents and did not prove
the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was
placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which
could not have been treated as evidence.”
21. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
vs. Saroj Kr. Sinha; (2010) 2 SCC 772, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as follows :-
“28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial
authority is in the position of an independent
adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a
representative of the department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His function is to examine
the evidence presented by the Department, even
in the absence of the delinquent official to see as
Patna High Court CWJC No. 6227 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
10/12
to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved. In the present
case the aforesaid procedure has not been
observed. Since no oral evidence has been
examined the documents have not been proved,
and could not have been taken into consideration
to conclude that the charges have been proved
against the respondents.
29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article
311(2) of the Constitution of India the
departmental enquiry had to be conducted in
accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is
a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice
that an employee be given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in any proceedings
which may culminate in punishment being
imposed on the employee.
30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted
against the government servant it cannot be
treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry
proceedings also cannot be conducted with a
closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly
unbiased. The rules of natural justice are
required to be observed to ensure not only that
justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done.
The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure
that a government servant is treated fairly in
proceedings which may culminate in imposition
of punishment including dismissal/removal from
service.
…….. ……….. ……….. ………. ...
33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only
Patna High Court CWJC No. 6227 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
11/12
the respondent has been denied access to
documents sought to be relied upon against him,
but he has been condemned unheard as the
inquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct
of the enquiry. In other words, not a single
witness has been examined in support of the
charges levelled against the respondent. The
High Court, therefore, has rightly observed that
the entire proceedings are vitiated having been
conducted in complete violation of the principles
of natural justice and total disregard of fair play.
The respondent never had any opportunity at any
stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation
against the allegations made in the charge-
sheet.”
22. Taking into consideration the ratio of the two
judgments, relevant portions of which have been reproduced
herein above together with the facts of the instant case
wherein, in course of the enquiry not a single witness was
examined, none of the 11 documents relied on by the
management having been exhibited or the contents thereof
proved by leading any oral evidence, it is a case of no
evidence against the petitioner.
23. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of
the case, the order of punishment of dismissal contained in
memo no.56 dated 27.2.2017 issued under the signature of the
Patna High Court CWJC No. 6227 of 2017 dt.29-01-2026
12/12
Under Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries
Department, Government of Bihar cannot be sustained and is
hereby set aside.
24. The writ application is allowed with all
consequential benefits.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 29.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…