Patna High Court
Mukesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that the revision proceedings were initiated after the statutory six‑month period and without giving the employee a reasonable opportunity, thereby violating Rule 28 of the CCA Rules, 2005 and rendering the show‑cause notice and subsequent punishment orders void.
Summary
The petitioner, a government servant, was punished by a censure order dated 16‑Oct‑2020 and later faced a revision of punishment through a show‑cause notice dated 29‑Jun‑2021 and a notification dated 30‑Jun‑2021 reducing his pay scale. He contended that the revision was initiated beyond the six‑month period prescribed by Rule 28 of the CCA Rules, 2005, that the notice did not specify the proposed penalty, and that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard, rendering the proceedings void. The State argued that the six‑month limitation could be relaxed under the proviso to Rule 25 and that the appellate authority could condone delay. The Court examined the statutory language of Rule 28, relevant Supreme Court precedents on jurisdiction and statutory time limits, and held that the revision was initiated after the limitation period and without compliance with the requirement of a reasonable opportunity, making the notice and subsequent punishment orders void. Consequently, the Court directed the pending appellate authority to decide the appeal within sixty days in accordance with its observations. The writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a show‑cause notice issued under Rule 28 of the CCA Rules, 2005 after the six‑month limitation period is void.
- Whether the consequent punishment order can be validated when the initiating notice is void.
- Whether failure to specify the proposed penalty and to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing violates natural justice.
- Whether the imposition of a second punishment amounts to double jeopardy infringing Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the proviso to Rule 25 permits condonation of delay in initiating revision proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Electricity Act, 2023 — s. 127
- Central Excise Act, 1944 — s. 35-H(1)
- Cooperative Societies (CCA) Rules, 2005 — s. Rule 14, Rule 17, Rule 25, Rule 28, Rule 29
Subjects
- Rule 28
- revision of punishment
- statutory limitation
- void order
- natural justice
- double jeopardy
- Article 21
- appeal pendency
- Cooperative Societies
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.714 of 2026
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar Son of Dhaneshwar Singh, Resident of Bisar Tank New Area,
P.S.- Civil Line, P.O.-Gaya, District-Gaya, Presently Posted as Joint Registrar
(Audit) Cooperative Societies, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, Combined
Building Manali Chouck, Near Nagar Nigam Office, Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government, of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Joint Registrar Audit Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Karna, Advocaet
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Saurav Kumar, AC to GA-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-02-2026
Heard learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief/s :-
“(i) For quashing the Show Cause Notice
contained in Letter No. 1653 dated 29.06.2021 issued by
Respondent Deputy Secretary, Cooperative Department,
Government of Bihar invoking Rule-28 of the Bihar C.C.A.
Rules, 2005 on the ground of being in breach of Rule -28
and thus a nullity in the eyes of law.
(ii) For quashing the Notification No. 1657
dated 30.06.2021 awarding punishment of reduction to a
lower stage in the time of scale of pay for a period of 03
years on the ground that once the invocation of proceeding
under Rule 28 C.C. Rule 2005 being illegal, without
jurisdictiona nd a nullity in the eyes of law, all consequential
Patna High Court CWJC No.714 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
2/11
orders including the punishment is also illegal based on the
Principles of Sublato fundamento as settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. Davindar Pal Singh
reported in 2011(14) SCC 770 (Para-107) holding that a
void act cannot be validated by a subsequent steps.
(ii) For a direction to the Respondent
Authority to restore the status of the petitioner in the correct
time scale of pay along with consequential monetary benefits
as punishment awarded by the Respondent Authority vide
order contained in Notification No. 1657 dated 30.06.2021
is itself without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of law.
(iii) For a direction to pay full salary for the
entire period of suspension after adjusting the subsistence
allowance and allowing the Revision of subsistence
allowance as per law as held by Full Bench of the Hon'ble
High Court, Patna in the case of Mahavir Prasad Vs. The
State of Bihar reported in 1998 PLJR 82 holding mandatory
requirement of separate Notice independent reasoned order
for denying salary for the suspension period.
(iv) For a declaration that the proceeding
under Rule 28 CCA Rules can be initiated only within 06
months from the date of order of earlier punishment hence,
the initiation of proceeding including the consequential
order are without jurisdiction.
(v) For further declaration that the
impugned order under Notification No. 1657 dated
30.06.2021 does not discuss the reasons for revising the
earlier punishment under Notification 2684 dated
16.10.2020 which had already been implemented as the
Petitioner suffered denial of promotion for three years on
account of punishment of censure as per CCA Rules and he
also suffered the illegal denial of full salary for the period of
suspension.
(vi) For further declaration that the Show
Cause Notice under Letter No. 1653 dated 29.06.2021 as
issued was not only beyond 06 months statutory time line but
also without any reference of penalty proposed as per first
proviso to Rule 26 CCA Rules 2005.
(vii) For further declaration that a void
order cannot be validated on account of limitation on that a
void order has no legal existence and the same is always
open to be challenge at any stage.
(viii) For further declaration that once the
punishment under Notification 2684 dated 16.10.2020 is
already implemented, imposition of further punishment of
Patna High Court CWJC No.714 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
3/11
reduction to the lower stage under Notification 1657 dated
30.06.2021 is in fact second punishment / double jeopardy
being in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(ix) For a direction to the revisional
/appellate authority to dispose of the appeal whose long
pendency is in breach State Litigation Policy apart from
causing prejudice to the Petitioner for having suffered
reduction to a lower rank in a proceeding which is without
jurisdiction and without sanction of law.”
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was a government servant and was
subjected to punishment pursuant to a departmental proceeding
vide Notification No. 2684 dated 16.10.2020. The punishment
imposed upon the petitioner was that of censure for the period
from 14.07.2014 to 14.01.2017, along with denial of full salary
for the suspension period from 12.10.2018 to 16.10.2020.
Learned Senior Counsel further submits that no separate
notification was ever issued by the department specifically
denying full salary for the suspension period, except payment of
subsistence allowance.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed a
representation seeking revision of his subsistence allowance.
However, the authority concerned invoked Rule 28 of the CCA
Rules, 2005 and issued a show cause notice without disclosing
any proposed punishment or the object of such revision, vide
Letter No. 1653 dated 29.06.2021. Surprisingly, the punishment
Patna High Court CWJC No.714 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
4/11
order was revised on the very next day, i.e., 30.06.2021. Learned
Senior Counsel submits that Rule 28 of the CCA Rules, 2005
has been enacted for the employer/government, and as per the
mandate of law, revision of punishment can be undertaken only
within six months, and that too after clearly mentioning the
proposed punishment and affording reasonable opportunity to
the delinquent employee.
5. It is further submitted that in the present case,
the impugned orders contained in Letter No. 1653 dated
29.06.2021 (show cause notice) and Notification No. 1656 dated
30.06.2021 (enhanced punishment) have been passed in gross
violation of Rule 28 of the CCA Rules, 2005. The violations are
as follows:
(a) No show cause notice was issued
specifying the proposed enhancement of punishment.
(b) The decision was taken under Rule 28 of
the CCA Rules, 2005 after the lapse of the statutory period
of six months.
(c) Reasonable opportunity, as mandated
under Rule 28 of the CCA Rules, 2005, was not granted,
inasmuch as the show cause notice was issued on
29.06.2021 and the enhanced punishment was imposed
Patna High Court CWJC No.714 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
5/11
within 24 hours on 30.06.2021.
6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
such violation of the provisions of the CCA Rules, 2005
deserves interference by this Hon’ble Court. In support of his
submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan,
reported in (1954) 1 SCC 710, wherein, in paragraph 6, it has
been held that an order passed in violation of a statutory time
limit is coram non judice, and therefore, such an order is a
nullity in the eyes of law.
7. Learned counsel further relies upon the
judgment in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Health Services,
Haryana, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 136, wherein paragraphs
9, 10, and 11 deal with the issue of jurisdiction, holding that an
order passed without jurisdiction is void and unenforceable, and
that factors such as limitation, waiver, or acquiescence do not
cure such a defect. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the
present case, the objection goes to the very root of jurisdiction,
particularly where the existence of jurisdiction is a condition
precedent for passing the order.
8. It is further submitted that similar statutory time
limits have been prescribed in other enactments, such as Section
Patna High Court CWJC No.714 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
6/11
35-H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 127 of the
Bihar Electricity Act, 2023, where the time limits prescribed
under the statute are mandatory and not extendable. Learned
Senior Counsel further submits that the order dated 30.06.2021
was challenged before the appellate authority on 30.11.2021, but
the appellate authority has failed to pass any final order and has
kept the matter pending for the last four years, causing grave
prejudice to the petitioner. Due to this inaction, the petitioner
has been constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court by filing
the present writ petition.
9. It is lastly submitted that both the revision
notice dated 29.06.2021 and the final order dated 30.06.2021
have been issued in gross violation of the provisions of the CCA
Rules, 2005 as well as the principles of natural justice, inasmuch
as the show cause notice was issued on 29.06.2021 and the final
order was passed the very next day without granting reasonable
opportunity. On these grounds alone, Learned Senior Counsel
submits that neither the notice for revision nor the final order
passed on the next day is sustainable in the eyes of law, and
therefore seeks immediate interference by this Hon’ble Court by
setting aside the impugned Notifications dated 29.06.2021 and
30.06.2021.
Patna High Court CWJC No.714 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
7/11
10. Learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, submits that upon a reading of Rule 29 of the CCA Rules,
2005, a period of six months has been prescribed. However,
Rule 28(3) also provides that an application for revision shall be
dealt with in the same manner as provided under the said rule.
He further submits that under Rules 23 to 25 of the CCA Rules,
2005, the period prescribed for filing an appeal is 45 days, with
a further provision that the appellate authority may entertain an
appeal even after expiry of the said period, provided it is
satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring
the appeal within the prescribed time. On the aforesaid basis,
learned counsel for the State submits that while interpreting
Rule 28 of the CCA Rules, 2005, the provisions contained in the
proviso to Rule 25 of the CCA Rules, 2005 ought to be taken
into consideration. He submits that by adopting a liberal
interpretation of Rule 28 read with Rule 25 of the CCA Rules,
2005, it may be held that the period of six months is not an
absolute or inflexible limitation, and that the said period also
includes the power to condone delay, where sufficient cause is
shown.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the
judgments relied upon by the petitioner are of no assistance to
Patna High Court CWJC No.714 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
8/11
the present case, inasmuch as the statutory scheme itself is clear
and permits such an interpretation.
12. Upon hearing the parties, this Court deem it
appropriate to discuss rule 28 of the CCA Rules, 2005 as
under ;-
“28. Notwithstanding anything contained in
these Rules,-
(i) the Government, or
(ii) the head of a department directly under
the Government, in the case of a Government servant
serving in a department or office, under the control of such
head of a department, or
(iii) the appellate authority, or
(iv)any other authority specified in this
behalf by the Government by a general or special order, and
within such time as may be prescribed in such general or
special order,may at any time within six months of the date
of the order proposed to be revised, either on his or its own
motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and
revise any order made under these Rules or under the Rules
repealed by the Rule 32 (from which an appeal is allowed
but from which no appeal has been preferred or from which
no appeal is allowed), after consultation with the
Commission where such consultation is necessary, and may-
(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order, or
(b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the
penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where
no penalty has been imposed, or
(c) remit the case to the authority, making
the order or to any other authority, directing such authority,
to make such further inquiry as he may consider proper in
the circumstances of the case, or
(d) pass such other orders aS it may deem
fit:Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any
penalty shall be made by any revising authority unless the
Government Servant concerned has been given a reasonable
opportunity of making a representation against the penalty
proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the
penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 14 or to
enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.714 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
9/11
revised to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, no
such penalty shall be imposed without an inquiry in the
manner laid down in Rule 17 and after giving a reasonable
opportunity to the Government Servant concerned of
showing cause against the penalty proposed on the evidence
adduced during the inquiry and except after consultation
with the Commission where such consultation is
necessary:Provided further that rib power of revision shall
be exercised by the head of department, unless-
(i) the authority which made the order in
appeal, or
(ii) the authority to which an appeal would
lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to
him.
(2)No proceeding for revision shall be
commenced until after
(i)the expiry of the period of limitation for
an appeal, or
(ii)the disposal of the appeal, where any
such appeal has been preferred.
(3)An application for revision shall be dealt
with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under these
Rules.”
13. From a bare reading of Rule 28 of the CCA
Rules, 2005, it transpires that four categories of authorities are
empowered to entertain a revision within six months from the
date of the order proposed to be revised. In the present case, it is
evident to this Court that the revisional proceedings were
initiated after the expiry of six months, and further, the
revisional order was passed on the very next day. It is also
apparent that under the second proviso to Rule 28, a clear
restriction has been imposed, mandating that the government
servant concerned must be afforded a reasonable opportunity of
Patna High Court CWJC No.714 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
10/11
making representation against the penalty proposed. For these
reasons, the following infirmities are apparent in the present
case:
“(i) The decision to undertake revision of the
earlier order was taken after the lapse of six months. (ii) The
final punishment order was passed on 16.10.2020, whereas the
show cause notice was issued on 29.06.2021, i.e., beyond the
statutory period of six months, and (iii) the revisional order was
passed on the very next day.”
14. This, in the considered opinion of this Court,
constitutes a gross violation of Rule 28 of the CCA Rules, 2005.
It has been jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State that an appeal
against the final order is admittedly pending before the appellate
authority.
15. In view of the same, this Court deems it
appropriate to decide the legal position and refer the matter back
to the appellate authority where the petitioner’s appeal is
pending.
16. Accordingly, the appellate authority is directed
to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of sixty
(60) days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
Patna High Court CWJC No.714 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
11/11
order. It is further directed that while deciding the appeal, the
appellate authority shall take into consideration the legal
position as determined by this Court and pass an appropriate
order within the stipulated period.
17. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
file additional written submissions/notes, if so advised. The
period of sixty days shall be reckoned from the date of
submission of such additional notes.
18. With the aforesaid observations and directions,
the present Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04/02/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.