Patna High Court
Himanshu Shekhar JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
Both the disciplinary and appellate orders are set aside as they violate Rule 18(2) and 18(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
Summary
The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, challenged a censure and salary forfeiture order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Katihar, alleging procedural violations under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer who exonerated the petitioner, yet the authority issued a punishment order without recording reasons for disagreement or forwarding the enquiry report as required by Rules 18(2) and 18(3). The appellate authority also upheld the order without addressing these procedural defects. The High Court held that both the disciplinary and appellate orders were defective for violating the specified rules and set them aside. The court granted liberty to the disciplinary authority to re‑initiate proceedings from the second show‑cause stage within three months, and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary authority violated Rule 18(2) and 18(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 by failing to record reasons of disagreement and forward the enquiry report to the servant.
- Whether the censure and salary forfeiture order is void for procedural irregularity.
- Whether the appellate authority erred in not considering the procedural lapse in the disciplinary proceeding.
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- natural justice
- Bihar CCA Rules 2005
- procedural lapse
- censure
- salary forfeiture
- writ petition
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7466 of 2025
======================================================
Himanshu Shekhar Jha Son of Srikant Jha, Resident of Village- Shadipur
(Bekapur) P.S- Basudeopur, District- Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Teerthankar, Advocate
Mr. Utkarsh Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kr. Verma (AC to AAG-9)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-03-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing of the Katihar District Order No. 689/2019 contained
in Memo No. 1768 dated 30.04.2019 (Annexure-P/3) issued by
the Superintendent of Police, Katihar, by which the punishment
of censure has been inflicted upon the petitioner. Further
directing to forfeit the salary for the period of suspension of 116
days. Further for quashing of the appellate order bearing Purnea
Range Order No. 185/2019 contained in Memo No. 1741 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.7466 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
2/7
02.12.2019 (Annexure-P/5), by which the appeal of the
petitioner has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at
that relevant period of time, the petitioner was posted as
Assistant Sub-Inspector, Kodha Police Station, District-Katihar.
Counsel submits that a Memo No.819 dated 25.08.2017 was
issued by the Superintendent of Police, Katihar vide District
Order No. 1079/2017, asking explanation from the petitioner.
Subsequently, a memo of charge has been framed by the
Superintendent of Police, Katihar and also a Conducting Officer
was appointed and same has been served upon the petitioner
vide Memo No. 3019 dated 22.09.2017. Counsel further submits
that the Enquiry Officer/Conducting Officer after the
departmental proceeding found that no alleged charges have
been proved against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer
submitted his enquiry report before the Superintendent of
Police, Katihar. He submits that the Enquiry Officer has
exonerated the petitioner from all the charges levelled against
him. But, the Superintendent of Police, Katihar without
assigning any reasons of disagreement and without considering
the enquiry report, passed final order vide Katihar District Order
No. 689/2019 contained in Memo No. 1768 dated 30.04.2019
Patna High Court CWJC No.7466 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
3/7
(Annexure-P/3). Counsel submits that the petitioner has
challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority, but the
Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal of the petitioner
vide Purnea Range Order No. 185/2019 contained in Memo No.
1741 dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure-P/5).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate
Authority passed order in gross violation of the Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bihar CCA Rules, 2005’).
Counsel submits that though, punishment order is minor in
nature, but the authority decided to conduct the proceeding in
presence of Enquiry Authority and when the Enquiry Officer has
submitted his report by exonerating the petitioner from all the
charges, then the Disciplinary Authority ought to disagree and
issue disagreement memo, then to put show cause and then only
pass final order. But, such procedural lapse has been made and
the punishment order has been passed in gross violation of
principles of natural justice. In the appeal also, this aspect has
not been considered at all and the petitioner’s appeal was
rejected. Counsel, therefore, submits that both the orders i.e.
orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7466 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
4/7
Appellate Authority are bad in law and both orders be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the punishment order is minor and there is no need
even for conduction of disciplinary enquiry for passing a minor
punishment. Counsel submits further that the petitioner has filed
show cause after demanding explanation and then the
Disciplinary Authority is competent to pass order only by virtue
of his explanation. Therefore, he submits that the orders passed
by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate
Authority are completely in accordance with law and there is no
need of any interference in this matter.
6. After hearing the parties, it is admitted that the
petitioner was A.S.I, the Disciplinary Authority is the
Superintendent of Police, Katihar and the punishment order is
minor in nature. It is also not in dispute that the procedure for
imposing minor penalties is laid down under Rule 19 of the
Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. But, here in the present case, vide
Annexure-P/1, explanation was demanded by the
Superintendent of Police. But subsequently, vide Annexure-P/2,
Enquiry Officer has been appointed and once the Enquiry
Officer has been appointed, it means that the Disciplinary
Authority is entrusted to conduct the proceeding in accordance
Patna High Court CWJC No.7466 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
5/7
with rule laid down under Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005. The law is very much clear according to provision of Rule
19 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 that once, the Disciplinary
Authority decides that order of punishment has to be passed
following the conduction of disciplinary proceeding by
appointing Enquiry Officer, then it has to be followed in its true
spirit and sense.
7. It is admitted position in the present case that the
Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges
levelled against him and according to Rule 18(2) and 18(3) of
the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, once the Disciplinary Authority
become disagree on the reasons assigned by the Enquiry Officer,
he has to assign reasons for disagreement and has to serve copy
of the same upon the delinquent demanding show cause, which
are absolutely lacking in the present case. It is relevant to quote
the Rule 18(2) and 18(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, which
reads as under:-
“18.2 The disciplinary authority, after
receipt of the enquiry report as per Rule 17
(23)(ii) or as per sub-rule (1), shall, if it
disagrees with the findings of the inquiring
authority on any article of charge, record its
reasons for such disagreement and record
its own finding on such charge, if the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7466 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
6/7
evidences on record is sufficient for the
purpose.
18.3 The disciplinary authority shall
forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of
the inquiry report, together with its own
findings, if any, as provided in sub-rule (2),
to the government servant who may submit,
if he or she so desires, his or her written
representation or submission to the
disciplinary authority within fifteen days.”
8. Upon perusal of the law mentioned above, it
become very much clear that the reasons should be assigned by
the Disciplinary Authority as to why he disagreed from the
report of the Enquiry Officer. Here in the present case, there is
absolute lacking of the same. Pleading has been made in the writ
petition, but there is no specific answer of the State on this point
about violation of Rule 18(2) and 18(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005. It also transpires to this Court that this failure of law has
also not been discussed by the Appellate Authority.
9. In this view of the matter, this Court finds that
the original order as well as the appellate order both are
defective and passed in gross violation of Rule 18(2) and 18(3)
of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
10. Hence, the order passed by the Disciplinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.7466 of 2025 dt.31-03-2026
7/7
Authority vide Katihar District Order No. 689/2019 contained in
Memo No. 1768 dated 30.04.2019 (Annexure-P/3) as well as the
order passed by the Appellate Authority vide Purnea Range
Order No. 185/2019 contained in Memo No. 1741 dated
02.12.2019 (Annexure-P/5), both are hereby set aside.
11. Liberty is granted to the Disciplinary Authority
to pass order afresh, commencing from the stage of the second
show cause notice. However, all decisions shall be taken within
three months from the date of production of this order.
12. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations,
the present writ petition stands allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 02/04/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…