Patna High Court
Suresh PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The departmental proceedings were conducted without the participation of a Presenting Officer, violating Rule 17, and therefore the penalty orders are bad in law and are set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Suresh Prasad, a government servant, filed a writ petition challenging a departmental penalty of censure and withholding of two pay increments imposed by the State of Bihar. He contended that the enquiry report, disciplinary order and review order were illegal because the departmental proceeding was conducted without a Presenting Officer, as mandated by Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The State argued that a Presenting Officer had been appointed and therefore the proceedings were valid. The Court examined the records and found that although a Presenting Officer was appointed, he did not participate in any stage of the enquiry or disciplinary process, rendering the proceedings void. Relying on the ratio in Upendra Pandit v. State of Bihar (2023), the Court held that the absence of a Presenting Officer vitiates the proceeding. Consequently, the enquiry report, disciplinary order and review order were set aside and the writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental proceeding is vitiated by the absence of a Presenting Officer as required under Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.
- Whether the penalty orders (censure and withholding of increments) are bad in law on that ground.
- Whether the precedent set in Upendra Pandit v. State of Bihar applies to the present case.
Subjects
- departmental inquiry
- presenting officer
- Rule 17
- penalty
- Bihar public service
- writ petition
- bad in law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6480 of 2022
======================================================
Suresh Prasad Son of Jagu Prasad Resident of Village- Meskaur, P.S.-
Meskaur, District- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, General
Administration Department, Patna.
2. The Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Patna.
4. The Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Patna.
5. The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur-cum-Enquiry
Officer.
6. The District Magistrate, Jamui-cum Presenting Officer.
7. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, AC to AAG-3
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2026
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned
Counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission and learned
Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing the impugned order of penalty issued vide Memo
No.15068 dated 15.12.2021 as contained in Annexure-16 with
subsequent prayer to quash the review order contained in Memo
Patna High Court CWJC No.6480 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
2/6
No.3980 dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure-18). The further prayer
has been made to quash the enquiry report issued vide letter
No.262 dated 09.09.2021 as contained in Annexure-14.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 09.09.2021, the
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 15.12.2021 and
order passed by Review Authority dated 15.03.2022 are bad-in-
law due to the reason that it was the specific direction in the
resolution contained in Memo No.9673 dated 13.10.2020 that
for the purpose of departmental proceeding the Presenting
Officer shall be appointed by the District Magistrate. Counsel
submits that in this regard the enquiry report which is Annexure-
14, the disciplinary order (Annexure-16) and the reviewing
order (Annexure-18). It is not clear that who is the Presenting
Officer in the present departmental proceeding. Counsel submits
that any departmental proceeding conducted in absence of
Presenting Officer is bad-in-law as in this regard the Hon’ble
Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Upendra
Pandit Vs. the State of Bihar and Others vide order dated
05.09.2023 passed in L.P.A. No.507 of 2017 observe that any
punishment without appointment of Presenting Officer was a
clear and serious lapse of the provision of Rule 17 of the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.6480 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
3/6
Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCA Rules, 2005’).
Therefore, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
departmental proceeding has been conducted in absence of the
Presenting Officer and, hence, it is absolutely bad and fit to be
set aside.
4. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other
hand, submits that there is no substance in the argument of
learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submits that charge
memo has been issued completely in accordance with the CCA
Rules, 2005 as well as in the light of Regulation of 2017. He
further submits that the Enquiry Officer has well discussed the
charges and found all four charges well proved against him.
Learned Counsel for the State further submits that the second
show-cause has been issued after receiving the enquiry report of
the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority held punishment
against the petitioner of Censure for the year 2017-18 and
withholding of two increments of pay without cumulative effect.
He further submits that the said punishment is a minor
punishment and in the review petition his punishment has been
affirmed. He submits that the judgment on which the petitioner
relied Upendra Pandit (supra) shall not help the petitioner in
Patna High Court CWJC No.6480 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
4/6
any manner due to the reason that from the document
(Annexure-17) there was an appointment of Presenting Officer
whereas the said judgment says that if any proceeding
conducted without appointment of Presenting Officer then only
the proceeding shall vitiate. He submits that here in the present
case, the presenting officer has been appointed, therefore, the
judgment shall not help in any manner.
5. After hearing the parties and going through the
document available on record, this Court has put specific
question to the Counsel for the State that if there is a Presenting
Officer appointed in the departmental proceeding then whether
the said Presenting Officer had participated in the said
proceeding. Counsel for the State has fairly submits that from
the document it transpires that the Presenting Officer has been
appointed but there is no whisper about the Presenting Officer’s
role either in the enquiry proceeding or in the departmental
proceeding or before the Reviewing Authority. This Court after
hearing this answer, reached on the conclusion that yes
appointment of the Presenting Officer is there, but the said
Presenting Officer has not participated in the departmental
proceeding meaning thereby the present proceeding has run in
the absence of the Presenting Officer and in this view of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6480 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
5/6
matter, the Court is of the firm view that the the ratio laid down
in Upendra Pandit (supra) shall absolutely apply in this case.
The ratio of the said Division Bench judgment in paragraph-11
reads as under:
“11. In the opinion of the
Court, Rule 17 (3) and (4) of the Rules of
2005 are very clear when they provide that
where it is proposed to hold an inquiry
against the government servant under the
said Rules, the disciplinary authority shall
draw up or cause to be drawn up the
substance of the imputation of misconduct or
misbehaviour in support of each article of
charge, the same shall contain a statement of
relevant facts, list of documents and list of
witnesses by which the articles of charges
are proposed to be sustained. Thus, non
supply of the list of documents and the list of
witnesses to the appellant in the instant case
on which the disciplinary authority proposed
to sustain the charges levelled against the
appellant in the disciplinary proceeding as
also the proceeding being conducted without
appointment of a Presenting Officer was a
clear and serious lapse of the provisions of
Rule 17 of the Act of 2005. The requirement
of Rule 17 (3) and (4) not having been
fulfilled, the order of punishment of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6480 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
6/6
dismissal from service of the appellant
cannot be sustained. Both the orders of
dismissal dated 29.12.2005 and the order
dated 30.04.2008 rejecting the Patna High
Court L.P.A No.507 of 2017 dt.05-09-2023
7/8 appeal preferred by the appellant are
both set aside. The order of the learned
Single Judge also cannot be sustained and is
hereby set aside.”
6. In this background, this Court reached on the
conclusion that enquiry report, the disciplinary order and the
review order all are bad-in-law and, hence, all orders issued vide
Memo No.15068 dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure-16), Memo
No.3980 dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure-18) and letter No.262
dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure-14) are hereby set aside.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 31.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…