Patna High Court
Hari Shankar KashyapversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities were set aside as they violated procedural rules, and the writ petition was allowed.
Summary
The petitioner, a Sub‑Inspector of Police, challenged a disciplinary order that forfeited six months of increment and a subsequent appellate rejection, alleging that he was not given a second show‑cause notice and was denied a chance to represent against the enquiry report, violating Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The State contended that procedural rules were complied with and the punishment was proportionate. The Court examined whether the disciplinary and appellate authorities had breached the procedural safeguards prescribed under the Bihar CCA Rules and the Police Manual. Finding a gross violation of the required second show‑cause procedure, the Court held the disciplinary order dated 12‑11‑2022 and the appellate order dated 25‑08‑2023 to be illegal. Consequently, both orders were set aside and the writ petition was allowed, granting the petitioner relief from the imposed penalty.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary authority violated Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 by failing to issue a second show‑cause notice.
- Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity to represent against the enquiry report, breaching principles of natural justice.
- Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal under Rule 23 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and Police Manual Rule 851(B).
- Whether the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities are liable to be quashed.
Subjects
- departmental disciplinary action
- police service
- second show cause notice
- natural justice
- Bihar CCA Rules
- Police Manual
- writ petition
- quashing order
- increment forfeiture
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8438 of 2024
======================================================
Hari Shankar Kashyap S/o- Sripati Pandey Resident of Village- Navin Nagar
Purani Kalali, P,S.- Nawada, District- Nawada and also residing at Paura P.S.
and District- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. D.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. A.D.G. (Budget Appeal and Welfare), Bihar, Patna.
4. D.I.G., Purviya Range, Bhagalpur.
5. S.P., Naugachhia.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar (AC to GP-5)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for the
following relief/s:-
“1. For quashing memo no. 2236/Ra
Ka Dt. 12.11-2022 issued by S.P.
Naugachhia where by petitioner has
Patna High Court CWJC No.8438 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
2/5
been inflicted punishment of
forfeiture of six month increment with
non cumulative effect and equal to
one black mark i.e. Annexure-4 and
also for quashing memo no 1536 / Sa
Sa Dt. 25/08/2023 issued by DIG
Purviya Range Bhagalpur whereby
the appeal of the petitioner has been
rejected i.e. Annexure-6 and also for
quashing file no 50/2023/14/appeal
Kosang Dt. 23/01/2024 issued by
ADG (Budget, appeal and welfare)
Bihar Patna whereby the appeal filed
before him has been said to be not to
be considered under rule 23 of Bihar
C.C.A. Rule 2005 and police Manual
Rule 851 (B) and rejected i.e.
Annexure 7 and for grant of all
consequential benefits or for any
other order or orders which this
Hon'ble court may deem fit and
proper under the circumstances of
this case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner joined his service on the post of Sub-Inspector of
Police in 2009. The petitioner was serving in the Naugachhia
P.S and thereafter, transferred to Bhagalpur district. Counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.8438 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
3/5
submits that a departmental charge was levelled against the
petitioner during his posting in Naugachhia P.S followed by
charge memo and departmental enquiry in which charges were
proved against him. The matter was recommended before the
Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority has
passed final order against the petitioner imposing punishment of
stoppage of six month increments with non cumulative effect
which is equivalent to one black mark. Counsel further submits
that the petitioner has challenged the said order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority before the Appellate Authority (DIG,
Purviya Range, Bhagalpur). But, the appeal of the petitioner was
rejected vide Memo No. 1536 dated 25.08.2023. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed further appeal before the ADG (Budget, Appeal
and Welfare), Bihar, Patna which was also rejected, as not
maintainable. On the point of merit, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that from the orders passed by the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, it become
crystal clear that second show cause has not been provided to
the petitioner. He further submits that in passing the order, there
is a gross violation of Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
He submits that he has taken specific pleading in para nos. 24
and 25 of the writ petition that the Disciplinary Authority viz,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8438 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
4/5
the S.P., did not gave opportunity to the petitioner to represent
against the enquiry report, which is illegal. He further pleaded
that no second show cause was asked by the S.P. before passing
the order of punishment. Therefore, he submits that the order
has been passed completely in violation of the rule established
under law.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the petitioner was granted due opportunity, rule has
been followed and a proportionate punishment has been
imposed upon the petitioner.
5. Upon a specific query of the Court from learned
counsel for the State that what is the response with regard to
para 24 and 25 of the writ petition, he fairly submits that in para
41 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the
submissions made in para 24 and 25 of the writ application
requires no comments, however, the fact remains that the
Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty.
6. In the light of the submissions made, particularly
on behalf of the petitioner that opportunity of second show
cause has not been given by the Disciplinary Authority,
therefore, this Court hereby finds that there is a gross violation
of the rule under which the proceeding has to be conducted.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8438 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026
5/5
7. Hence, the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 12.11.2022 contained in Memo No. 2236
(Annexure-P/4) and the order passed by the Appellate Authority
dated 25.08.2023 contained in Memo No. 1536 (Annexure-P/6),
both are hereby set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition stands
allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06/02/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…