Patna High Court
Santosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Appellate Authority’s order is in full compliance with the High Court’s directions and is therefore valid.
Summary
Santosh Kumar, a Revenue Clerk, was compulsorily retired by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad, and the order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The High Court, in CWJC No. 318 of 2021, quashed both the disciplinary and appellate orders and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to reconsider a punishment less severe than retirement. The Appellate Authority issued a fresh order on 01‑02‑2024 reducing the petitioner’s pay scale and addressing his entitlement for the period from the charge memo to the fresh order. The petitioner challenged this order, alleging non‑compliance with the High Court’s directions. The Court examined the earlier judgment, found that the appellate authority had fully complied with the mandated reconsideration and entitlement provisions, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 01‑02‑2024 passed by the Appellate Authority complies with the High Court’s directions to impose a punishment less than compulsory retirement.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement or any other relief after the quashing of the original and appellate orders.
Subjects
- compulsory retirement
- disciplinary action
- service appeal
- reinstatement
- punishment
- appellate authority
- high court writ
- compliance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8272 of 2024
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Son of Late Laxmi Narayan Singh, Resident of Gram
Anandibag, P.O - Karpi, P.S.- Karpi, District- Arwal, Bihar, Pin Code-
804419.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Magadh Division Gaya, cum Appellate Authority.
4. The District Officer, Jehanabad, P.O.- Jehanabad, District- Jehanabad-cum-
Disciplinary Authority.
5. The Deputy Collector, in-charge Establishment Section, Collectoriate,
Jehanabad.
6. The Additional Collector cum Enquiry Officer, Jehanabad, District-
Jehanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subhash Patel, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Navnit Kumar, AC to GP-18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by
the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya-cum-Appellate
Authority in Service Appeal No. 99 of 2015, annexed as
Annexure-P/12, and has further prayed for reinstatement to the
post of Revenue Clerk (Karamchari) as a Government employee
with all consequential benefits to which he is entitled, after
setting aside the order contained in Annexure-P/12 to this writ
petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8272 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/6
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits
that, in a departmental proceeding, the petitioner was punished
with compulsory retirement vide order dated 11.12.2014 issued
by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad. Subsequently, the
petitioner moved before the Appellate Authority, and the
Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 10.06.2020, affirmed
the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
The punishment imposed was that of compulsory retirement.
4. Counsel further submits that the petitioner
challenged both the aforesaid orders before this Hon’ble Court
in CWJC No. 318 of 2021, wherein, vide order dated
12.09.2023, this Hon’ble Court set aside both the orders passed
by the Disciplinary Authority dated 11.12.2014 as well as the
order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 10.06.2020, by
which the order of compulsory retirement had been affirmed.
5. Counsel further submits that since the order of
compulsory retirement, both original and appellate, stood
quashed, the Appellate Authority was required to pass a fresh
order after considering the entire material on record, which it
has failed to do. According to him, the order impugned herein
has been passed upon remand of the case in compliance with the
order dated 12.09.2023 passed in CWJC No. 318 of 2021.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8272 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/6
6. Counsel further submits that in the impugned order
dated 01.02.2024, none of the points were considered, inasmuch
as both the original and appellate orders had been quashed. He
submits that the order passed by the Commissioner, Magadh
Division, Gaya-cum-Appellate Authority is bad in law.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that there is no need of any interference in the said
order. He further submits that although the order of compulsory
retirement contained in the order dated 11.12.2014 and the
appellate order dated 10.06.2020 have been quashed, the matter
was remanded back only for reconsideration on the point of
suitable punishment, which was instructed to be considered as
less than compulsory retirement to be imposed on the petitioner.
8. Counsel further submits that in the impugned order
dated 01.02.2024 passed in Service Appeal No. 99 of 2015, the
directions contained in the Hon’ble Court’s order dated
12.09.2023 passed in CWJC No. 318 of 2021 have been
complied with in their true spirit and sense, and hence there is
no need of any interference.
9. Having regard to the submissions advanced and
upon perusal of the record, it is necessary to examine the order
passed by this Hon’ble Court in the case of petitioner Santosh
Patna High Court CWJC No.8272 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2026
4/6
Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., in CWJC No. 318 of
2021, dated 12.09.2023. In the said order, this Hon’ble Court
has been pleased to consider each and every aspect of the matter
relating to the delinquent petitioner and has observed, in two
paragraphs, what the Appellate Authority is required to do. The
said paragraphs are as follows:-
24. The order of compulsory
retirement dated 11-12-2014 issued by
the District Magistrate, Jehanabad
(Respondent No.4), as contained in
Annexure-6 to the writ petition is,
therefore, quashed. The order of the
appellate authority dated 10-06-2020
(Annexure-10) affirming the
disproportionate order of punishment
must also collapse and is hereby
quashed.
25. The matter is remanded
to the Appellate Authority
(Respondent No.3) for reconsideration
on the point of suitable punishment,
less than compulsory retirement to be
imposed on the petitioner. The Count
is of the opinion that the Respondent
No.3 should also pass order on
entitlement of the petitioner for the
period from the date of charge memo
till passing of fresh order within eight
Patna High Court CWJC No.8272 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2026
5/6
(08) weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
10. Upon perusal of the order passed by this Hon’ble
Court in CWJC No. 318 of 2021 dated 12.09.2023, as well as
the impugned order, it transpires to this Court that the Hon’ble
Court quashed both the original order as well as the appellate
order, but restricted the Appellate Authority to reconsider the
matter only on the point of suitable punishment, which must be
less than compulsory retirement to be imposed upon the
petitioner.
11. The observation made in paragraph 25 of the
aforesaid writ petition clearly indicates that the finding of guilt
on the point of charge was affirmed by the Hon’ble Court.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellate
Authority, in its order dated 01.02.2024, has rightly observed
that the charge stood proved, as discussed in the Hon’ble
Court’s order and the remand was limited only to the aspect of
punishment. The Hon’ble Court had directed reconsideration
solely on the point of suitable punishment less than compulsory
retirement
12. In true compliance thereof, the Appellate
Authority has passed an order whereby the punishment of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8272 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2026
6/6
compulsory retirement has been removed and only punishment
of lowering of pay scale has been passed. Similarly, the second
direction, i.e., regarding the entitlement of the petitioner for the
period from the date of charge memo till passing of fresh order
within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt / production of
a copy of this order has also been complied with.
13. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is
of the firm view that the order passed by the Hon’ble Writ Court
has been fully complied with by the Appellate Authority and
there is no need of any interference.
14. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…