Patna High Court
Navnit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Annexure‑P/13 and not under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, and therefore declined to interfere, dismissing the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Navnit Kumar, a contractual Panchayat Rozgar Sevak, challenged the termination of his service on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were not in accordance with the Bihar Classification, Control & Appeal Rules, 2005 and were beyond the authority of the respondents. He alleged that the complaints against him were politically motivated and that the procedural safeguards, such as appointment of enquiry and presenting officers, were not observed. The State contended that the action was taken under the specific procedure outlined in Annexure‑P/13 dated 25‑03‑2022, which governs disciplinary action for contractual employees, and that the proceedings were lawful. The High Court examined the records, noted that all three authorities (original, appellate and revisional) arrived at consistent findings, and held that the procedure under Annexure‑P/13, not the Bihar CCA Rules, applied and had been duly followed. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the factual findings and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether disciplinary action against a contractual Panchayat Rozgar Sevak can be taken under Annexure‑P/13 rather than the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
- Whether the procedural requirements of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, apply to a contractual employee in the MGNREGA scheme.
- Whether the termination order passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner is jurisdictionally valid.
- Whether the appellate and revisional authorities erred in upholding the termination.
Subjects
- contractual employee
- disciplinary proceedings
- MGNREGA
- Bihar CCA Rules 2005
- termination of service
- certiorari
- mandamus
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8158 of 2025
======================================================
Navnit Kumar S/o Late Krishna Mohan Prasad, R/o village- Line Par-
Mirzapur, Gali No. - 3, P.O. and P.S. - Nawada, District- Nawada- 805110.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA)-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bihar Rural
Development Society, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Rural Development Authority, Jehanabad.
5. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad.
6. The Deputy Development Commissioner (D.D.C.), D.R.D.A., Jehanabad.
7. The Programme Officer, MGNREGA, Kako, Jehanabad.
8. Sudhir Kumar, Son of Late Raja Ram Singh, Aged about - not known,
Resident of - village- Ramdani, Circle- Kako District- Jehanabad, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (19)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief/s:-
“I. For issuance of an order (s) / direction
(s) or writ(s) in the nature of writ of
certiorari for quashing the order dated
27.10.2023 contained in memo no 2242797
dated 03.11.2023 passed in Revision Appeal
arising out of departmental letter No-
Patna High Court CWJC No.8158 of 2025 dt.20-04-2026
2/10
2007870 dated 21.08.2023 whereby and
whereunder the Revision appeal of the
petitioner has been rejected by the
Secretary, Department of Rural
Development, Bihar, Patna and also to
quash/set aside the order arising out of
Panchayat Rozgar Service Appeal Case No.
66/D.M./2022 dated 28.03.2023 passed by
learned District Magistrate, Jehanabad
whereunder the Learned District magistrate
rejected the said Panchayat Rozgar Service
Appeal and also to set aside/quash the
purported order passed by the Deputy
Development Commissioner, Jehanabad
vide his order contained in letter no. 1863
dated 10.10.2022 whereby and whereunder
the D.D.C., Jehanabad cancelled the
contract of the petitioner, Panchayat Rojgar
Sevak (ID No. 113959), Gram Panchayat
Pinjora and his services are terminated.
And/or
II. For issuance of further order(s) /
direction(s) or writ(s) in the nature of
Mandamus directing the Respondents to
reinstate the petitioner in the service of
Panchayat Rojgar Sevak without any
further delay with all consequential
benefits. And/or
III. For necessary direction to the
respondents authorities to grant all
Patna High Court CWJC No.8158 of 2025 dt.20-04-2026
3/10
consequential benefits to the Petitioner,
such as the salary for the period the
petitioner remained terminated from service
and the benefit of increment for which the
petitioner became entitled during the period
from 10.10.2022 till date.
IV. A direction be issued upon the
respondent authorities, each one of them,
their servants and/or subordinates and/or
agents to forthwith produce and/or caused
to be produced the entire records relating to
the Petitioner's case and on such
production being made, render
conscionable justice upon perusing the
same; And/or
V. For issuance of any further order (s) /
direction (s) or writ(s) which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the instant case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Rozgar Sevak vide
order contained in Memo No. 675 dated 03.04.2008 on contract
basis and he has submitted his joining at Banwariya Panchayat,
Block- Narkatiyaganj, District- West Champaran. Subsequently,
the petitioner was transferred from West Champaran to
Jehanabad. The service record of the petitioner was satisfactory
Patna High Court CWJC No.8158 of 2025 dt.20-04-2026
4/10
and he was sincerely discharging his duty with full devotion and
dedication. Counsel submits that one politically motivated
person namely, Sudhir Kumar (Respondent no.8) has filed the
complaint against the petitioner that he is a visually impaired
person and Rs. 2,940/- has been credited in his account in lieu of
working under MGNREGA Scheme. He further submits that
due to dirty village politics, several complaints were filed
against the petitioner. One of the complaint case made by
respondent no.8 that he is a visually impaired person and Rs.
2,940/- has been credited in his account in lieu of work under
MGNREGA Scheme. He further complained that after the
money was credited in his account, contractor came to his house
and demanded the said money and told that the money for the
drain digging work done under MGNREGA Scheme has been
sent to his account. When he refused to return the money, he
was badly abused. Thereafter, he spoke to Panchayat Rozgar
Sevak (the petitioner) and further alleged to have been admitted
his fault and asked him to keep the money. Counsel further
submits that again on 11.07.2022, the complainant respondent
again made a complaint to the District Magistrate and in lieu
thereof, enquiry was set up handed over to the respondent no. 6
(D.D.C.). Upon enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and
Patna High Court CWJC No.8158 of 2025 dt.20-04-2026
5/10
subsequently, the Appointing Authority has passed order. The
matter was travelled up to appeal and then revision, but the
order of punishment has been affirmed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the order was made to the petitioner to make
payment of Rs. 2,940/- to the complainant which he has paid.
But, even thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate
Authority and the Revisional Authority, all have decided the
case against the petitioner and his contract was terminated.
Counsel submits that Annexure-P/13 is the Letter No. 196 dated
25.03.2022 issued by the Rural Development Department, Govt.
of Bihar for Bihar Rural Development Society. The procedure
for taking disciplinary action against the BRDS employee and
officers has been described in clause 3. Counsel submits that
action has been taken in gross violation. He also submits that the
punishment prescribed under the said clause has not been
imposed, rather, a non-jurisdictional order has been passed
which ought to be set aside and the punishment only imposing
Rs. 1,000/- cost or filing FIR can be imposed, but termination
cannot be made. Therefore, he submits that the order has been
passed beyond jurisdiction. Counsel also submits that according
to the procedure/rule, whatever be the show cause he has
Patna High Court CWJC No.8158 of 2025 dt.20-04-2026
6/10
submitted, the concerned authority neither at the level of
Original Authority nor at the level of Appellate Authority and
nor at the level of Revisional Authority have considered the
representation filed by the petitioner. Counsel, therefore,
submits that all the three orders impugned are bad in law and be
set aside. He further submits that neither any Enquiry Officer
was appointed nor Presenting Officer was appointed nor any
evidence taken place on the charge and the petitioner was
punished.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that admittedly, the petitioner is a contractual employee
and his term of contract is already mentioned in the appointment
letter. Though, certain protection has been given which is
mentioned in Annexure-P/13 i.e. Letter No. 196 dated
25.03.2022. Counsel further submits that whatever be the action
taken against the petitioner has been taken completely in
accordance with law. He submits that against the petitioner,
there were two allegations. First is the allegation of money and
second allegation is that he has taken a work for which, actually
no work was done. But only on paper, the money has been
taken.
6. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires to this
Patna High Court CWJC No.8158 of 2025 dt.20-04-2026
7/10
Court that the petitioner is a contractual employee and for taking
disciplinary action against the contractual employee, Annexure-
P/13 i.e. Letter No. 196 dated 25.03.2022 has been annexed. An
extract of the said letter is scanned below:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.8158 of 2025 dt.20-04-2026
8/10
7. It transpires from the orders impugned that the
explanation has been placed before the petitioner on which he
Patna High Court CWJC No.8158 of 2025 dt.20-04-2026
9/10
has replied. The allegation of the petitioner that Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bihar CCA Rules, 2005’) has
not applied here in the present case, this Court is completely
disagree, as the petitioner is not protected under the Bihar CCA
Rules 2005. It also transpires to this Court that for the protection
of the petitioner from the departmental proceeding, Annexure-
P/13 is very much relevant in which the Original Authority is the
Deputy Development Commissioner, Jehanabad, the Appellate
Authority is the District Magistrate, Jehanabad and the
Revisional Authority is the Secretary, Department of Rural
Development, Bihar, Patna.
8. The petitioner has challenged the order of the
Original Authority contained in Memo No. 1863 dated
10.10.2022 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the D.D.C. Jehanabad. The
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. D.D.C. Jehanabad
is a well reasoned order which also indicates that liberty of filing
appeal has been granted within 30 days. Thereafter, the petitioner
filed the appeal and his appeal was rejected vide order dated
28.03.2023 (Annexure-P/9). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a
revision which was also rejected vide order dated 27.10.2023
(Annexure-P/11). From the revisional order, it transpires that
whatever be the point the petitioner has raised, has been taken
Patna High Court CWJC No.8158 of 2025 dt.20-04-2026
10/10
care of and accordingly, revisional order has been passed by the
Revisional Authority.
9. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings
by all the three authorities/courts against the petitioner. Being the
High Court, this Court hereby declines to interfere in the
concurrent findings by all the three authorities at the factual
matrix. So far as the law is concerned i.e. rule contained in
Annexure-P/13, where, how the disciplinary proceeding shall be
conducted has already been indicated in clause 3. It transpires to
this Court that the proceeding laid down under clause 3 is not the
proceeding under Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. It is something
different and from the orders impugned, this Court finds that the
procedure which has to be taken under clause 3 of Annexure-
P/13 has been followed.
10. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in
the factual matrix and accordingly, this writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22/04/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…