Patna High Court
DayanandversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The appellate order is set aside and the appellate authority is directed to pass a fresh order considering all points raised by the petitioner within 90 days.
Summary
The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, was suspended under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and faced departmental proceedings with multiple charges. Although the first enquiry found the charges proved, a second enquiry exonerated him, and a fresh enquiry again cleared him of all allegations. Despite this, the disciplinary authority imposed a warning and stopped two annual increments, and the appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal in a cryptic order that did not address any of his submissions. The petitioner challenged the appellate order, arguing it violated Rule 24(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and the principles of natural justice. The High Court held that the appellate order was not a proper reconsideration of the case, was issued without considering the points raised, and therefore was invalid. Consequently, the court set aside the appellate order and directed the appellate authority to pass a fresh order considering all the appellant's contentions within 90 days. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate authority's order dismissing the petitioner's appeal complied with Rule 24(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and the requirements of natural justice.
- Whether the disciplinary punishment of warning and stoppage of two annual increments was justified in view of the exonerating enquiry reports.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash the appellate order and direct a fresh consideration.
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- natural justice
- Bihar CCA Rules, 2005
- appellate authority
- writ jurisdiction
- punishment
- increment
- suspension
- review
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7404 of 2025
======================================================
Dayanand Son of Late Kameshwar Singh, Resident of mohalla- Gandhinagar,
Ward no.- 33, Police Station- Nagar, District Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department,
Bihar, Patna .
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Headquarter, Water Resources Department, Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Water Resources Department, Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Mechanical, Irrigation Mechanical Circle,
Gaya
5. The Superintending Engineer, Mechanical, Irrigation Mechanical Circle,
Muzaffarpur.
6. The Executive Engineer, Mechanical, Irrigation Mechanical Division,
Aurangabad.
7. The Executive Engineer, Mechanical, Irrigation Mechanical Division,
Valmikinagar, West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr.Praveen Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vivek Prasad, GP7
Mrs.Manisha Singh, AC to GP7
Mrs.Mita Kumari, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 31-03-2026 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) For issuance of appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders in the nature of certiorari
for quashing the appellate order contained in
memo no. 1463 dated 25.03.2025 issued by
Patna High Court CWJC No.7404 of 2025(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/6
respondent no.2, whereby and where under the
appeal preferred by the petitioner against
punishment order dated 25.05.2024 and
30.10.2024 has been rejected in cryptic manner,
without giving due consideration to the facts of the
case.
(ii) For quashing the punishment order
contained in memo no. 2125 dated 30.10.2024
issued by respondent no.3, whereby and where
under it has been held that except subsistence
allowance, nothing shall be payable to the
petitioner for the suspension period from
31.01.2023 to 25.05.2024, though the same would
be counted for pensionary benefits.
(iii) For quashing the punishment order
contained in memo no. 901 dated 25.05.2024
issued by respondent no.3, whereby and where
under the petitioner has been awarded the
punishment of warning and stoppage of two annual
increment without cumulative effect in a
departmental proceeding, on non-est grounds,
though the charges alleged against the petitioner
have not been proved before the enquiry officer and
he has been exonerated in the enquiry report dated
16.11.2023.
(iv) In consequent thereof, for direction
to the respondent authorities to grant annual
increment as well as entire salary for suspension
period and the consequential monetary benefits
admissible to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7404 of 2025(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/6
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was posted at the relevant time as Executive Engineer,
Valmikinagar. He further submits that a complaint has been
made against him and on the basis of which, he was suspended
under Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 vide letter No.218 dated
30.01.2023 issued by respondent No.3. He further submits that
the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner
vide letter No.244 dated 01.02.2023 in which four charges were
framed against him and Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer
were also appointed.
4. Counsel further submits that enquiry was not
conducted properly and the Enquiry Officer found charges
proved against petitioner and submitted its report on 13.05.2023.
He further submits that the Disciplinary Authority had reached
on the conclusion that earlier enquiry was not in accordance
with law as directed for re-enquiry and second enquiry report
has been submitted on 16.11.2023 in which petitioner was
exonerated from all the four charges. He further submits that
second show-cause has also been demanded from the petitioner
on 30.06.2023. In response, he has submitted his explanation on
13.07.2023 and after considering the second show-cause, the
disciplinary authority has decided to conduct a fresh enquiry. In
Patna High Court CWJC No.7404 of 2025(2) dt.31-03-2026
4/6
the fresh enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from all charges.
He further submits that the second enquiry report was submitted
on 16.11.2023. After receiving enquiry report, the Disciplinary
Authority has served disagreement memo and demanded second
show-cause on three points on which disagreement has been
demanded. He further submits that out of three points, first two
points were relating to earlier charges, but the third point of
disagreement, is completely new charge, which is impermissible
in law.
5. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has
submitted his second show-cause for the second time, but
petitioner was imposed punishment and by virtue of the same,
stoppage of two annual increment without cumulative effect has
been imposed against the petitioner. He further submits that the
said punishment is minor in nature.
6. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has
preferred an appeal against the said punishment order, but the
Appellate authority without considering any points raised in the
memorandum of appeal, has affirmed the passed order. He
further submits that Annexure-P/15 i.e., Memo No.1463 dated
25.03.2025, is the order passed by the appellate authority. He
further submits that the order of appellate authority has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.7404 of 2025(2) dt.31-03-2026
5/6
passed without consideration of his single points and only one
line observation has come after hearing both the parties and
upon consideration, appeal was rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for
review of the decisions made. He further submits that the scope
of review is very limited and only on the point of violation of
any rule or violation of natural justice or exorbitant punishment,
the review can be made. He further submits that the order
impugned passed by the Disciplinary Authority is well
explained and with consideration of all the points raised by the
petitioner. Therefore, there is no need of any interference in the
original order and similarly, the appellate authority has granted
opportunity to both parties and upon hearing them, by way of
following the natural justice, appeal has also been dismissed.
8. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the
documents, this Court is, at this juncture, not inclined to make
any comment either on second show-cause or passing any order
by the Disciplinary Authority. But presently, this Court is only
making comment on the order passed by the appellate authority
that the appeal in accordance with law as laid down under Rule
24(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, is the re-consideration of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7404 of 2025(2) dt.31-03-2026
6/6
the entire case, but here in the present case, only one line order
has been passed, which is cryptic and none of the points raised
by the petitioner, has been considered by the
Appellate/Reviewing Authority.
9. In this view of the matter, this Court, without
expressing any opinion on the second show-cause or the order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority, set aside the order passed
by the Appellate Authority contained in Memo No.1463 dated
25.03.2025 issued by respondent No.2 that upon production of
this order, the Appellate Authority shall pass a fresh order
considering all the points made in the memo of appeal in
accordance with law within 90 days.
10. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the
present writ application stands allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
U
Checking your session…