Patna High Court
Sunil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court held that it cannot reinstate the employee and must remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to conduct a fresh enquiry, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition.
Summary
Sunil Kumar, a constable in the Madhubani Police Force, was removed from service by a departmental proceeding (Ziladesh No. 309 of 2024). He appealed to the Inspector General of Police, who set aside the removal and ordered a fresh departmental enquiry, a direction later affirmed by the Senior Superintendent of Police. The petitioner submitted a representation seeking immediate reinstatement, but the concerned authorities took no action, prompting him to file a writ petition for reinstatement and acceptance of his joining. The State argued that, based on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajit Singh and other precedents, a court cannot reinstate an employee when the original enquiry was vitiated; the matter must be remitted for a fresh enquiry. The Patna High Court accepted this settled legal proposition, directing the disciplinary authority to conduct a fresh proceeding within three months while the petitioner remains suspended, and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can order reinstatement of a police constable after a departmental order of removal has been set aside.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to join the service pending a fresh departmental enquiry.
- Whether the court may direct the respondent authority to accept the petitioner’s joining.
Subjects
- reinstatement
- departmental enquiry
- natural justice
- suspension
- police service
- writ petition
- disciplinary proceeding
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.795 of 2026
======================================================
Sunil Kumar son of Sri Ramjit Chaudhary, resident of Village-Mozakka, P.S.-
Bikram, District-Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
2. The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Patna
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna
4. The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani
5. The Superintendent of Police, Administration, Navin Police Centre, Patna
6. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sachiwalaya-02, Patna-cum- Enquiry
officer
7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Probation) Navin Police Kendra,
Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dhurjati Kr. Prasad (GP-14)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
directing the respondent no.4 to reinstate the petitioner into
service in the District Police Force, Madhubani and to accept his
joining on the post of Constable at Madhubani Police Force, as
in the departmental proceeding vide Ziladesh No. 309 of 2024
read with Memo No. 1021 dated 15.01.2024, the petitioner has
been removed from service and against the order of removal, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent no.2 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.795 of 2026(3) dt.21-04-2026
2/5
thereafter, the Respondent no.2 vide Memo No. 767 dated
27.08.2024 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and passed order
that imposed penalty upon the petitioner for removal from
service is set aside on the ground that departmental proceeding
was full of infirmity and vitiative and directed to initiate a fresh
departmental proceeding against the petitioner and thereafter,
the Respondent no.3 vide Patna Ziladesh No. 1252 of 2025 read
with Memo No. 4900 dated 21.03.2025 passed the order that
earlier imposed penalty passed by the Deputy Inspector of
Police-cum-Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna is set aside
and order is passed to initiate fresh departmental proceeding
against the petitioner by which, the defect of the departmental
proceeding may be cured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
upon the order passed by the Inspector General of Police, Patna
being the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has submitted his
representation vide Annexure-P/7 for acceptance of his joining,
but there was no decision taken by respondent no.4 including
other respondent authorities.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the relief which the petitioner is demanding cannot
be granted to him. He submits that setting aside the order passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.795 of 2026(3) dt.21-04-2026
3/5
by the Disciplinary Authority and matter remanded back for
fresh departmental proceeding shall not accrue any right in the
petitioner to join services afresh. He submits that in the light of
the decision made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case of The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Rajit Singh
reported in 2022 (2) PLJR SC 196, particularly it’s para 8 is
very much relevant. Counsel submits that it is a settled legal
proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of
punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly
conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must
remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to
conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and
conclude the same.
5. Upon hearing the parties, it is relevant to quote the
relevant para 8 of the said judgment of The State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. (supra), which reads as under:-
“8. It appears from the order passed by the
Tribunal that the Tribunal also observed that
the enquiry proceedings were against the
principles of natural justice in as much as the
documents mentioned in the charge sheet were
not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. As
per the settled proposition of law, in a case
where it is found that the enquiry is not
Patna High Court CWJC No.795 of 2026(3) dt.21-04-2026
4/5
conducted properly and/or the same is in
violation of the principles of natural justice, in
that case, the Court cannot reinstate the
employee as such and the matter is to be
remanded to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary
Authority to proceed further with the enquiry
from the stage of violation of principles of
natural justice is noticed and the enquiry has
to be proceeded further after furnishing the
necessary documents mentioned in the charge
sheet, which are alleged to have not been
given to the delinquent officer in the instant
case In the case of Chairman, Life Insurance
Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A.
Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, which was
also pressed into service on behalf of the
appellants before the High Court, it is
observed in paragraph 16 as under:-
“16. It is a settled legal proposition,
that once the court sets aside an
order of punishment, on the ground
that the enquiry was not properly
conducted, the court cannot reinstate
the employee. It must remit the case
concerned to the disciplinary
authority for it to conduct the enquiry
from the point that it stood vitiated,
and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v.
B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727],
Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M.
Patna High Court CWJC No.795 of 2026(3) dt.21-04-2026
5/5
School for Girls [(2002) 10 SCC
293], U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S.
Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264] and
Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008)
12 SCC 30]).”
6. In the light of the settled principle of law, this Court
restrain itself to pass any order to the respondent authorities to
accept the joining save and except directs the Disciplinary
Authority to conduct the disciplinary proceeding in accordance
with law as observed by the appellate order, within the
stipulated period of time of three months only. Since, order of
termination has set aside, therefore, petitioner’s status as
suspended employee shall continue.
7. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation, this
writ petition stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U
Checking your session…