Patna High Court
Uday KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The order does not amount to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and no hearing is required at that stage, so the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, a Block Development Officer, challenged an order dated 22‑10‑2025 that directed the framing of charges and initiation of departmental proceedings against him for allegedly violating Panchayati Raj guidelines while granting technical sanction for a welfare scheme. He argued that the order was passed without notice or hearing, violating natural justice, and that his actions were consistent with the 2017 guidelines which vested the Block Project Management Unit with authority to grant technical sanction. The State contended that the order was a preliminary step under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which does not require a hearing at the initiation stage. The Court examined the relevant rules and found that the order merely recommended inquiry and did not constitute the commencement of disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the Court held that no violation of natural justice occurred and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the order directing framing of charge and initiation of departmental proceedings without a prior hearing violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether, under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, a hearing is required at the stage of initiating departmental proceedings.
- Whether the petitioner’s grant of technical sanction was within the scope of the 2017 Panchayati Raj guidelines and therefore not misconduct.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- departmental proceedings
- natural justice
- technical sanction
- Bihar Government Servants Rules
- Panchayati Raj
- certiorari
- disciplinary action
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7970 of 2026
======================================================
Uday Kumar Son of Kishun Prasad, resident of village- Chakrasalpur More,
P.O. Rana Bigha, P.S. Deep Nagar, District- Nalanda at Biharsharif, presently
posted as Block Development Officer, Punpun, District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Patna, District- Patna.
4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Patna, District- Patna.
5. Dhananjay Madhu, Son of Bhagwan Singh, Resident of village- Shekhpura,
P.O. - Nandlal Bag, P.S. Gaurichak, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, GA-10
Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC-2 to GA-10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 08-07-2026
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the
following reliefs:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026
2/11
“1) For issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of
CERTIORARI for quashing the order
dated 22.10.2025 passed by the
Respondent no. 2 and contained in his
memo no.13030 dated 22.10.2025,
whereby and where under the Respondent
no.2 has been pleased to direct for
framing of charge against the petitioner
for initiation of a departmental
proceeding in view of the report of the
District Panchayat Raj Officer, Patna
contained in letter no.3188 dated
06.09.2021.
(II) For a declaration that if
under the instruction issued by the
Government, it was the Engineer of Block
Project Managing Unit, who was alone
competent for grant of technical sanction
for the schemes under Mukhyamantri Gali
Nali and Drinking Water Scheme, no
irregularity was committed by the
petitioner for framing of charge against
him if the technical sanction granted by
the Junior Engineer concerned.
(ΠΙ) For issuance of any other
appropriate writ/writs ,order / orders,
direction/directions for which the writ
petitioner would be found entitled under
the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after
Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026
3/11
the formation of the State Government following the 2015
General Elections, two welfare schemes, namely Mukhyamantri
Gramin Gali Nali Pakkikaran Yojana and Mukhyamantri
Gramin Pey Jal Nishchay Yojana, were introduced. For their
implementation, the Panchayati Raj Department issued detailed
guidelines vide Memo Nos. 5751 and 5752 dated 30.06.2017
(Annexures-P1 and P2). It is submitted that under Paragraph 4.3
of the said guidelines, a Block Project Management Unit
(BPMU), chaired by the Block Development Officer, was
constituted for implementation of the schemes. The Block
Panchayati Raj Officer was assigned the role of facilitator, while
the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer of MGNREGA were
to provide technical support. It is further submitted that the
Block Project Management Unit was entrusted with granting
technical sanction to the detailed project reports prepared for
ward-level schemes.
4. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to
the aforesaid guidelines, a scheme for Ward No. 1 of Gram
Panchayat Raj, Barawan, under the Mukhyamantri Gramin Gali
Nali Pakkikaran Yojana, was prepared by the Ward
Implementation and Management Committee after obtaining
administrative approval from the Mukhiya. The proposal was
Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026
4/11
thereafter forwarded to the Block Project Management Unit for
technical sanction. Upon grant of technical sanction, the
petitioner, in his capacity as Chairman of the Block Project
Management Unit, merely informed the Mukhiya/Panchayat
Secretary that technical sanction had been accorded and directed
them to proceed with execution of the work after obtaining the
requisite No Objection Certificate from the Circle Officer and
administrative approval of the Gram Panchayat.
5. It is further submitted that pursuant to Letter No.
20 dated 05.01.2021 issued by the District Magistrate, Patna, an
enquiry was conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer
regarding alleged irregularities committed by the Mukhiya of
Gram Panchayat Raj, Barawan. The enquiry report was
submitted vide Letter No. 3188 dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure-
P3). The report observed that, in view of the Panchayati Raj
Department's Letter No. 6578 dated 03.12.2018, forwarding the
estimates to the Block Project Management Unit for technical
sanction was not in conformity with the departmental
guidelines, though technical sanction had been granted by the
petitioner in his capacity as Block Development Officer.
6. Learned counsel refers to Letter No. 6578 dated
03.12.2018 (Annexure-P4) and submits that Paragraphs 6.2 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026
5/11
7.2 of Memo Nos. 5751 and 5752 dated 30.06.2017 specifically
contemplated that after administrative approval by the Gram
Panchayat, the Ward Implementation and Management
Committee would prepare the estimate with the assistance of the
Technical Assistant and obtain technical sanction from the
Block Project Management Unit. It is, therefore, submitted that
the petitioner's communication dated 30.10.2018, stating that
technical sanction had been granted by the Block Project
Management Unit, was fully consistent with the prevailing
guidelines and did not constitute any misconduct.
7. Learned counsel further submits that despite the
enquiry report not disclosing any misconduct on the part of the
petitioner, show-cause notices dated 11.10.2021 and 24.11.2021
were issued. Although the petitioner submitted a detailed reply
denying the allegations, Respondent No. 4, without proper
consideration of his defence, imposed the minor punishment of
"censure" vide Memo No. 341 dated 27.01.2023 (Annexure-P5).
It is further submitted that thereafter Respondent No. 5 preferred
a complaint before Respondent No. 2 challenging the aforesaid
action. The matter ultimately culminated in CWJC No. 7866 of
2025, wherein this Court directed the Additional Chief
Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, to
Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026
6/11
dispose of the petitioner's representation after granting an
opportunity of hearing by passing a reasoned and speaking order
within the stipulated period.
8. Learned counsel further submits that although
the impugned order dated 22.10.2025 (Memo No. 13030,
Annexure-P8) was purportedly passed in compliance with the
aforesaid direction, the petitioner was neither issued any notice
nor afforded an opportunity of hearing. By the said order,
Respondent No. 2 directed Respondent No. 3 to frame charges
and initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. It
is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be
set aside.
9. Learned counsel submits that the entire action is
founded upon Charge No. 2, which proceeds on the erroneous
assumption that placing the estimate before the Block Project
Management Unit was contrary to the departmental guidelines.
According to the petitioner, the estimates had been prepared by
the Ward Implementation and Management Committee with the
assistance of the competent technical personnel and after
obtaining administrative approval from the Gram Panchayat.
Technical sanction was granted by the Block Project
Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026
7/11
Management Unit in accordance with Paragraphs 6.2 and 7.2 of
Memo Nos. 5751 and 5752 dated 30.06.2017. The petitioner
neither granted the technical sanction in his individual capacity
nor committed any misconduct. Consequently, initiation of
departmental proceedings against him is wholly unsustainable in
law.
10. Learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, submits that the order dated 22.10.2025 passed by the
Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna (Respondent No. 2), as contained in Memo No. 13030,
has been passed strictly in accordance with law and does not
warrant any interference by this Court at this stage. It is
submitted that the impugned order merely directs the
constitution of an enquiry and recommends initiation of a
departmental proceeding against the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel further submits that initiation
of a departmental proceeding against a government servant is
governed by the CCA Rules, 2005, and at the stage of initiation
of such proceeding, no prior opportunity of hearing is required
to be afforded to the delinquent employee.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it
Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026
8/11
transpires to this Court that the petitioner is aggrieved by the
operative portion of the impugned order, which reads as follows:
“foHkkxh; i=kad&269] fnukad&17-
01-2017 }kjk fuxZr fn”kk funs”k ds vuqlkj
eq[;ea=h xzkeh.k xyh ukyh iDdhdj.k fu”p;
;kstuk ds rgr izfr okMZ O;; dh vf/kdre lhek
12-13 yk[k :i;s fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA
foÙkh; o’kZ 2016&17 ls 2020&21
ds chp inLFkkfir RkRdkyhu iz[kaM fodkl
inkf/kdkjh] iquiqu }kjk mDr lhek ls vf/kd jkf”k
ds fy, rduhdh Lohd`fr iznku djus ds fy,
iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh l{ke izkf/kdkj ugha gSaA
muds }kjk vius vf/kdkj {ks= ds brj fdu
ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,oa fdl izkf/kdkj ds lgefr ls
rduhdh Lohd`fr iznku dh x;h] ;h tkaWap dk
fo’k; gSA
7- vr,o rRdkyhu ftyk iapk;y
jkt inkf/kdkjh ds i=akd&3388] fnukad&06-09-
2021 es nks’kh Ikk;s x;s lacaf/kr iz[kaM fodkl
inkf/kdkjh ds fo:/k tokcnsgh r; djrs gq,
vkjksi i= xfBr dh tk, ,oa lacaf/kr foHkkx dks
vuq”kklfud dkjZokbZ gsrq vuq”kalk dh tk, rFkk
vuqikyu izfrosnu iapk;rh jkt foHkkx dks miyC/k
djk;h tk,A okn dh dkjZokbZ bl funs”k ds lkFk
lekIr dh tkrh gSA vkns”k dh izfr lHkh lacaf/kr
dks Hksth tk;sA”
13. Upon a plain reading of paragraphs 6 and 7, as
quoted hereinabove, it transpires that the Secretary, Panchayati
Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, has concluded
Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026
9/11
that the issues involved in the present matter require a detailed
enquiry and that responsibility is required to be fixed.
Accordingly, directions have been issued for framing of charges
and for taking appropriate steps towards initiation of a
departmental proceeding against the petitioner.
Rule 17(2) of the Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, reads as
follows:
“(2) Wherever the
disciplinary authority is of the opinion that
there are grounds for inquiring about the
truth of any imputation of misconduct or
misbehaviour against a government
servant, he may himself inquire into it, or
appoint under these Rules an authority to
inquire about the truth thereof.
[Provided that where the
Department Enquiry Commissioner is
appointed as inquiring authority in such
cases the Departmental Enquiry
Commissioner either himself conduct the
inquiry or may transfer the case of enquiry
to the Additional Departmental Enquiry
Commissioner. In the matter of such
transferred cases of enquiry the Additional
Departmental Enquiry Commissioner may
forward the records of enquiry along with
Enquiry report directly to the Disciplinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026
10/11
Authority.]
Explanation. - Where the
disciplinary authority himself holds the
inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (7) to
sub-rule (20) and in sub-rule (22) of this
Rule to the inquiring authority shall be
construed as a reference to the disciplinary
authority.”
14. A bare reading of Rule 17(2) of the CCA Rules,
2005 makes it evident that, at the stage of initiation of a
departmental proceeding, the satisfaction of the competent
disciplinary authority is sufficient. In the present case, the
superior authority has merely recommended to the competent
department that appropriate action be taken against the
petitioner by initiating a departmental proceeding. Such
recommendation, by itself, does not amount to initiation of the
disciplinary proceeding.
15. In accordance with law, the petitioner shall be
entitled to an opportunity of hearing only after the competent
disciplinary/appointing authority, upon being satisfied, decides
to initiate a departmental proceeding in terms of the CCA Rules,
2005. Until such decision is taken by the competent authority,
no legal right of the petitioner can be said to have been
infringed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026
11/11
16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
17. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 22.06.2026
Uploading Date 09/07/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.