Patna High Court

Shree Narayan Prasad Gupta @ Narayan Prasad GuptaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 26 March 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The court held that the disciplinary and appellate orders were in gross violation of Rules 18(2), 18(3) and 19(1)(b) of the CCA Rules, 2005 and therefore set them aside.

Summary

The petitioner, a police constable promoted to Assistant Sub-Inspector, was suspended in 2023 and subsequently had three months' pay increments withheld by the Superintendent of Police, Saran, despite an enquiry officer exonerating him of the charges. The petitioner appealed the disciplinary order, which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General and later by the Additional Director General, who cited lack of provision for a second appeal. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority violated Rule 18(2) and 18(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 by failing to record reasons for disagreement and by not issuing a show‑cause notice. The State argued that the orders were well‑reasoned and that the punishment was minor, thus not warranting interference. The High Court held that the disciplinary and appellate orders breached the procedural requirements of the CCA Rules and therefore set them aside, granting the petitioner liberty to have the matter reheard within 90 days, and allowed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Did the disciplinary authority comply with Rule 18(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 in recording reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report?
Did the disciplinary authority comply with Rule 18(3) of the same Rules by issuing a show‑cause notice to the petitioner?
Is the withholding of pay increments and denial of promotion valid in the absence of procedural compliance?
Whether the appellate authority was justified in upholding the disciplinary order despite alleged procedural violations.

Subjects

disciplinary proceedings
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005
Rule 18
Rule 19
pay increment
suspension
writ of mandamus
high court
police service

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7155 of 2025
======================================================
Shree Narayan Prasad Gupta @ Narayan Prasad Gupta S/o Late Balkrishna
Sah, R/o Village-Dulari, P.S.-Pipra, Dist-Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Sardar Patel
Bhawan, Nehru Path, Patna.
2. The Additional Director General of Police, Budget Appeal and Welfare,
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran, Chapra.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Saran, Chapra.
5. Shri Karamveer Prasad Singh, Circle Inspector Mufassil, Saran, Chapra.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Shivani Mishra, Advocate
Mrs. Pragati Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Vidhi Shree, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Tripurari Nath Ambastha, AC to SC-26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 26-03-2026

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and

learned Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with

the following reliefs:

“(i) Memo no. 4938/R.o
Chapra dated 26.09.2023 passed by
Superintendent of Police, Saran Chapra by
which pay increments for 6 months with non-
cumulative effect has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.7155 of 2025 dt.26-03-2026
2/8

withheld/stopped be set-aside.
(ii) Memo no. 1255/R.O
Chapra dated 06.03.2024 passed by Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Saran Range,
Chapra be set-aside whereby and
whereunder the appeal preferred by the
petitioner has been erroneously rejected.
(iii) Order dated 03.07.2024
passed by Additional Director General of
Police budget, appeal and welfare, Bihar
Patna be set-aside, whereby & whereunder
appeal preferred by the petitioner has not
been interfered and file has been consigned.
(iv) A writ of Mandamus be
issued directing the respondent authorities to
grant all consequential benefits including
arrears and difference of pay as well as due
promotion to the petitioner.”
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner was appointed on the post of constable with

effect from 02.01.1999. Subsequently, by virtue of his excellent

performance of work he was promoted to the rank of Assistant

Sub-Inspector of Police on 04.05.2017. Counsel submits that

during his tenure, petitioner has earned more than 30 rewards,

but unfortunately when he was posted at Dariyapur Police

Station, he received memo No.2078/R.O. Chapra dated

27.04.2023, issued by Superintendent of Police, Saran, whereby
Patna High Court CWJC No.7155 of 2025 dt.26-03-2026
3/8

he was placed under suspension and explanation was demanded

from him with regard to his absence from duty and he was

directed to present on duty on 26.10.2022 when six days CPL

was to be completed from 19.10.2022. Further charges were

levelled against him that of disobedience and negligence and

also that he failed to hand over the charge being present at the

police station. Charge memo is attached with Memo

No.2078/R.O. dated 27.04.2023. Counsel submits that he has

submitted his explanation before Superintendent of Police on

29.05.2023. He further submits that another explanation was

demanded on 06.08.2023, hence, he was under Medical

treatment and he was advised rest. He further submits that he

had already handed over his charge of Marhaura Police Station

Case No.509/18 and 553/2019 on 13.04.2020. Counsel submits

that on his part no chqarge was due to be handed over. He

further submits that departmental proceeding No.43/2023 was

initiated against the petitioner in which police Inspector-Cum-

Conducting Officer, Muffasil Circle Garkha Saran conducted

the departmental proceeding and after examining all the charges

held the petitioner not guilty of the charges and submitted his

enquiry report dated 30.08.2023. Counsel submits that even

after submission of the enquiry report that charges not found
Patna High Court CWJC No.7155 of 2025 dt.26-03-2026
4/8

true, the Superintendent of Police, Saran, passed the impugned

order of punishment vide Memo No.4938/R.O. Chapra dated

26.09.2023, by the said punishment three increments for six

months has been stopped/withheld and further he would not be

paid anything except what he has been paid during the period of

his suspension.

4. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner

being aggrieved by the said order preferred appeal before the

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra, but

the said appeal was also dismissed vide order contained in

Memo No.1255/R.O. dated 06.03.2024. Counsel submits that

thereafter the petitioner has preferred next appeal before the

Additional Director General of Police Budget Appeal Welfare

on 19.04.2024, but the said appeal was not entertained vide

order dated 03.07.2024. Learned Counsel for the petitioner

submits that from the order of the Enquiry Officer, it becomes

crystal clear that the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the

petitioner from both the charges and the Disciplinary Authority

(Superintendent of Police) has passed the order of punishment

in which no finding has been recorded as to why he became

disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer on article of

charges, which is in gross violation of Rule 18(2) the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.7155 of 2025 dt.26-03-2026
5/8

Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,

2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCA Rules, 2005’). He

also submits that the disciplinary authority has also not

forwarded any show-cause or disagreement memo under Rule

18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005 and pass final order directly

disagreeing on the enquiry report. Counsel submits that the

original order has been passed in gross violation of law

established.

5. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other

hand, submits that original order and appellate order both are

well reasoned and at the time of passing the order, this aspect

has been taken into consideration. He submits that in the

counter affidavit, the stand has been taken in paragraph (iv) that

after going through the records of the departmental enquiry, the

then Superintendent of Police, Saran, disagree with the

agreement memo and categorically stated that since despite

being direction to appear at Dariyapur Police Station and hand

over charge of investigation of case from other police station,

the delinquent failed to comply, therefore, he disagrees with the

enquiry report submitted by the conducting officer and

petitioner was found guilty of charges leveled against him and it

is due to this reason the petitioner’s salary increment shall be
Patna High Court CWJC No.7155 of 2025 dt.26-03-2026
6/8

stopped for six months with non cumulative effect and for the

period of suspension he will not be liable to receive any further

emoluments apart from the subsistence allowance already

received by him.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits

that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority have already been

examined by the Appellate Authority, namely the Deputy

Inspector General of Police, and the order passed by the

Disciplinary Authority has been affirmed. It is further submitted

that no interference is warranted in the present matter. Counsel

also contends that the petitioner subsequently challenged both

orders before the Additional Director General of Police;

however, the same was rejected on the ground that, as per the

Police Manual, there is no provision for a second appeal.

7. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of

the impugned orders, this Court finds that the Enquiry Officer

has admittedly exonerated the petitioner. Rule 18 of the CCA

Rules, 2005, which deals with action on the enquiry report,

clearly provides that where the Disciplinary Authority disagrees

with the findings of the Enquiry Authority, on any article of

charge, it is required to record reasons for such disagreement

and also record its own findings on such charge, provided that
Patna High Court CWJC No.7155 of 2025 dt.26-03-2026
7/8

the evidence on record is sufficient.

8. Further, Rule 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005

mandates that the Disciplinary Authority shall forward a copy of

the enquiry report, along with its own findings, if any, to the

delinquent employee, enabling him to submit his representation

within 15 days.

9. Here in the present case, there is a complete

non-compliance with the provisions of Rules 18(2) and 18(3) of

the CCA Rules, 2005. The record reveals that no reasons for

disagreement were recorded, nor was any disagreement memo

or second show-cause notice issued to the petitioner.

10. The respondents may contend that since only

a minor punishment has been imposed, interference is

unwarranted. However, Rule 19, which deals with imposition of

penalties, makes it clear that even in cases of minor punishment,

if the Disciplinary Authority chooses to adopt the procedure

prescribed under Rule 17(23), then it is bound to follow the

procedure laid down under Rules 17 and 18. In the present case,

such compliance is wholly absent.

11. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the order passed by the Disciplinary

Authority is in gross violation of Rules 18(2), 18(3), and 19(1)
Patna High Court CWJC No.7155 of 2025 dt.26-03-2026
8/8

(b) of the CCA Rules, 2005. Consequently, both the original

order contained in Memo No.4938/R.O. Chapra dated

26.09.2023 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Saran at

Chapra, and the appellate order contained in Memo

No.1255/R.O. Chapra dated 06.03.2024 passed by the Deputy

Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra, are hereby

set aside.

12. However, liberty is granted to the

Disciplinary Authority to proceed afresh from the stage of

consideration of the enquiry report, if so advised, and to

conclude the entire exercise within a period of 90 days from the

date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 31.03.2026
Transmission Date

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…