Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar RoyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court held that the departmental enquiry was lawful, natural justice was observed, and the petition was dismissed.
Summary
Rakesh Kumar Roy, a Judicial Magistrate, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash his dismissal, the departmental enquiry report, and a FIR filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court examined the charges of alleged financial irregularities, the findings of the departmental enquiry, and the petitioner’s delay of over six years in approaching the court. Relying on precedents that limit judicial review of disciplinary inquiries to procedural or legal errors, the Court found no illegality or violation of natural justice in the enquiry process. The Court also noted that the petitioner offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and that delay and laches can justify dismissal of a writ petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, refusing all reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the findings of the departmental enquiry were lawful and complied with principles of natural justice.
- Whether the petitioner’s delay of more than six years amounts to laches sufficient to bar the writ petition.
- Whether the High Court can quash the FIR and criminal proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Whether the court may interfere with the substantive merits of the disciplinary inquiry.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- judicial officer integrity
- writ of certiorari
- delay and laches
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Article 226
- natural justice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7853 of 2025
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Roy S/o Sri Lal Bahadur Roy, R/o Sona Singh Gali,
Ladarwaja, P.S. Kotwali, District Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The High Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar General, Patna.
5. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna.
6. The Registrar (Vigilance) cum Inquiry Officer, Patna High Court, Patna.
7. The Officer on Special Duty cum Presenting Officer, Patna High Court,
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harsh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhijeet, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (24)
Mr. Piyush Lal, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL @ ANSHUL RAJ
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 27-01-2026
Patna High Court CWJC No.7853 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
2/12
This writ petition has been filed by Rakesh Kumar
Roy with the following prayer:-
“i. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction for quashing the Notification of
the General Administration Department,
Govt. of Bihar contained in Memo No.
7593 dated 04.06.19 (Annexure 17)
whereby and whereunder in terms of the
recommendation of the Hon'ble Patna High
Court the Petitioner has been dismissed
from the Post of Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class-cum-Additional Munsif, Darbhanga.
ii. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction for quashing the resolution dated
10th March 2019 taken by the Hon'ble
Standing Committee of the Hon'ble Patna
High Court (Annexure 14) whereby and
whereunder the Full Court dismissed the
Petitioner from services and directed the
Registrar General to lodge an F.I.R under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
iii. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction for quashing the entire
disciplinary proceeding arising out of
Departmental Enquiry No. 01/2016
(including the inquiry report, and
consequential orders passed pursuant
thereto, etc.).
iv. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction for quashing the F.I.R. and
consequential criminal proceedings arising
out of Complaint filed by the Registrar
General pursuant to the impugned order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7853 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
3/12
dismissal.
v. For issuance of a writ of mandamus or any
other writ order or direction commanding
reinstatement of the Petitioner and for
grant of all consequential benefits to which
the Petitioner would be entitled to.
vi. For issuance of any other writ or order(s)
or direction(s) to which the Petitioner may
be found entitled to by this Hon'ble Court
in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. This Court initiated a departmental proceeding
against the petitioner, who was then posted as Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Darbhanga and the articles of charge
were served upon the petitioner vide Memo No.
6262/2016/Legal Cell, dated 28.01.2016, issued by Court, which
are as follows:
i. Charge No.1 is connected with S.B.Account
No. 30319819595 in the name of
delinquent regarding 58 entries of total
amount valued of Rs.50,91,214/- [(fifty lacs
ninety one thousand two hundred forteen)
(detailed in Annexure II at pages 5 and 6 of
File 'A')].
ii. Charge No. 2 is connected with Account
No. 10157028842 in the name of Sri Lal
Bahadur Rai, father of delinquent
regarding six entries of total amount
valued of Rs.73,600/- [(seventy three
Patna High Court CWJC No.7853 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
4/12
thousand six hundred) (detailed in
Annexure II at page 7 File 'A')].
iii. Charge No. 3 is connected with Account
No. 30582059004 in the name of Smt.
Rajbala Rashmi, W/O the delinquent,
regarding 281 entries of total amount
valued of Rs.65,28,306/- [(sixty five lacs
twenty eight thousand three hundred six)
(detailed in Annexure II at pages 8 to 17 of
File 'A')].
iv. Charge No. 4 is that of amount of
Rs.2,40,000/- was debited from the account
of the wife of the delinquent on the same
day i.e. 29.8.2012 with an intention to
cover up the illegal monetary gains
deposited in the account of the wife of the
delinquent and also concocted a story of
sale of his car for Rs.1,00,000/- to one
Sanjay Kumar.
v. Charge No. 5 is that Sri Ram Dayal
Paswan, father-in-law of the delinquent
had deposited amount regularly in the
Saving Bank Account of State Bank of India
of the delinquent and his wife which is not
a usual practice in the normal social life
and is highly unbelievable.
vi. Charge No. 6 is that the delinquent has
Patna High Court CWJC No.7853 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
5/12
tried to cover up his judicial mistakes by
taking a plea that his Peons have regularly
made deposits in his account as well as in
the account of his wife of State Bank of
India, which is unusual and gives an
impression of acceptance of illegal money
through Peons.
3. In pursuance of the disciplinary proceedings arising
out of departmental enquiry no. 01/2016 conducted, the Enquiry
Officer reached at the following findings:
1. Regarding charge no. 1, the Enquiry
Officer found that the delinquent failed to
satisfactorily explain the source of 18
cash deposits made in S.B.Account No.
30319819595. The evidence establishes
that deposits were made on consecutive or
alternative dates, which is uncommon to
prudent banking practices and suggests
irregular monetary transactions. The
Enquiry Officer further opined that the
delinquent failed to satisfactorily explain
the source of his cash deposits and
therefore, he held that charge stands
proved as the delinquent failed to
maintain absolute integrity as a member
of Judicial Services, amounting to gross
misconduct within the ambit of Bihar
Government Servant Conduct Rules;
Patna High Court CWJC No.7853 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
6/12
2. Regarding charge no. 2, the Enquiry
Officer found that transactions in the
account of the delinquent's father i.e. S.B.
Account No. 10157028842 were made in
normal and natural course of affairs
between a father and son, therefore, it
may not be categorized as financial
irregularity;
3. Regarding charge no. 3, the Enquiry
Officer found that 87 cash deposits in the
wife's account remained unexplained and
indicate financial impropriety. The pattern
of deposits on consecutive dates factored
with self-deposit which were termed as
savings is shoddy and mischievous. The
Enquiry Officer has further opined that
the delinquent has further told white lies
regarding the deposits in his wife’s
account by him, his father-in-law and his
sister as self-deposits;
4. Regarding charge no. 4, the Enquiry
Officer found the sale of the cars to be
genuine. However, concerning the
transaction of Rs. 2,40,000/- for alleged
land purchase, the delinquent failed to
produce any agreement of sale or
supporting documentation despite the
substantial amount involved, which the
enquiry officer found to be peculiar and
unheard of and created a strong inference
Patna High Court CWJC No.7853 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
7/12
of financial irregularity;
5. Regarding charge no. 5, the Enquiry
Officer found that deposits made by Ram
Gyan Paswan, father-in-law of the
delinquent, in the accounts of the
delinquent and his wife were highly
suspicious and disproportionate to his
known income. The evidence establishes
that Ram Gyan Paswan deposited Rs.
1,75,000/- in the year 2010 to his
daughter and son-in-law despite his
monthly salary being only Rs. 24,000/-,
making such generosity financially
impossible from legitimate sources. The
inability to explain the source of such
disproportionate payments creates a
strong circumstance indicating lack of
maintenance of financial probity.
6. Regarding charge no. 6, the Enquiry
officer found that unexplained cash
deposits were made in the savings bank
accounts of the delinquent officer and his
wife through the office peon, as evidenced
by the testimony of witnesses and the
failure of the delinquent to disclose the
source of the said amounts was treated as
a material circumstance indicating that
the funds were routed by the delinquent
into the said accounts.
4. A copy of the aforesaid findings of the Enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.7853 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
8/12
Officer in the departmental proceedings were supplied to the
petitioner on 06/12/2018. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a
comprehensive representation against the findings on
17/01/2019. Upon a detailed perusal of the enquiry report and
the petitioner’s representation, the petitioner was dismissed
from the post of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-cum-
Additional Munsif, Dharbhanga, vide Memo No. 7593, dated
04.06.2019.
5. When we made a query to the learned counsel for
the petitioner as to what explanation has been offered by the
petitioner for explaining the delay in approaching this Court
challenging the dismissal order dated 04.06.2019 after more
than six and half years, there was no satisfactory answer to that
effect. No explanation has been furnished in the writ petition.
However, the learned counsel submits that delay and laches
cannot be the sole ground not to entertain the writ petition. He
also submits that it is a case of no evidence.
6. With respect to the issue of delay and laches, the
issue is no more res integra rather the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Mrinmov Maitv vs. Chhanda Koley, (2024) 15
SCC 215 has held that:
“11. For filing of a writ petition, there
is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is
Patna High Court CWJC No.7853 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
9/12
prescribed. However, when the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to
be seen as to whether within a reasonable time
same has been invoked and even submitting of
memorials would not revive the dead cause of
action or resurrect the cause of action which
has had a natural death. In such circumstances
on the ground of delay and laches alone, the
appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant
ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ
petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High
Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole
ground itself, inasmuch as the writ courts are
not to indulge in permitting such indolent
litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is
true that there cannot be any waiver of
fundamental right but while exercising
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the
High Court will have to necessarily take into
consideration the delay and laches on the part
of the applicant in approaching a writ court….”
7. On perusal of the charges framed against the
petitioner so also the inquiry report, we find that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the same. Principle of natural justice
has been followed and the petitioner has been provided with due
opportunity to place his case and it cannot be said that the
finding is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
In the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate
Patna High Court CWJC No.7853 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
10/12
Authority) and Ors. Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2
SCC 612 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held that:
“23. The power of judicial review in the
matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the
departmental/appellate authorities discharged by
constitutional Courts Under Article 226 or Article
32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is
circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law
or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice
or violation of principles of natural justice and it is
not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an
appellate authority which has been earlier
examined by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v.
T.V. Venugopalan 1994(6) SCC 302.…”
8. In view of the charges framed and the findings
arrived at in the departmental enquiry, it appears that the
integrity of the petitioner is doubtful.
In the case of C. Ravichandran Iyer vs. Justice
A.M. Bhattacharjee & Others 1995(5) SCC 457 the Hon’ble
Apex Court highlighted the level of integrity requisite in a
Judicial Officer by stating in para 21 that:
“ 21. Judicial office is essentially a
public trust. Society is, therefore, entitled to
expect that a Judge must be a man of high
integrity, honesty and required to have moral
vigour, ethical firmness and impervious to
Patna High Court CWJC No.7853 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
11/12
corrupt or venial influences. He is required to
keep most exacting standards of propriety in
judicial conduct. Any conduct which tends to
undermine public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the court would be
deleterious to the efficacy of judicial process.
Society, therefore, expects higher standards of
conduct and rectitude from a Judge.
Unwritten code of conduct is writ large for
judicial officers to emulate and imbibe high
moral or ethical standards expected of a
higher judicial functionary, as wholesome
standard of conduct which would generate
public confidence, accord dignity to the
judicial office and enhance public image, not
only of the Judge but the court itself. It is,
therefore, a basic requirement that a Judge's
official and personal conduct be free from
impropriety; the same must be in tune with
the highest standard of propriety and probity.
The standard of conduct is higher than that
expected of a layman and also higher than
that expected of an advocate. In fact, even his
private life must adhere to high standards of
probity and propriety, higher than those
deemed acceptable for others. Therefore, the
Judge can ill-afford to seek shelter from the
fallen standard in the society.…”
9. In view of the limited scope in interference of this
Patna High Court CWJC No.7853 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
12/12
Court with such order, in view of the settled law as decided in
the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority)
and Ors. Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (supra) we are not
inclined to grant any relief sought for in this writ petition.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
11. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Ansul @ Anshul Raj, J)
Siddharth Soni/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 29.01.2026
Transmission Date 29.01.2026
Checking your session…