Patna High Court
Anil Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, and the petitioner is directed to participate in the departmental proceeding.
Summary
The petitioner, Anil Prasad Singh, filed a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash a departmental proceeding order and a memo of charge, alleging they were issued without substantive evidence, and also sought a mandamus to stay the proceeding. The State argued that a counter‑affidavit had been filed, the charge memo was not defective, and the petitioner, while serving as Panchayat Sachiv, had committed serious financial irregularities justifying disciplinary action. The court examined the charge memo but declined to assess its merits, directing the petitioner to participate in the departmental enquiry and raise his grievances before the conducting officer. The court ordered the departmental proceeding to be concluded within three months. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner can be quashed for lack of substantive evidence
- Whether the memo of charge framed against the petitioner is violative of law and thus liable to be set aside
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to stay the departmental proceeding pending the outcome of the writ petition
Subjects
- departmental proceedings
- certiorari
- mandamus
- civil service disciplinary action
- Bihar government
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8600 of 2024
======================================================
Anil Prasad Singh Son of late Ram Ekwal Singh R/O Vill. Garihar, Police
Station - Masaudhi in the district of Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Govt. of Bihar Patna.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar Patna.
3. The Deputy Collector Cum Conducting Officer, Departmental Proceedings,
Patna.
4. The Block Development officer Naubatpur.
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna.
6. The Block Development Officer, Punpun, Patna.
7. The Subdivisional Officer Mashaurhi, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kinkar Kumar (SC-9)
Mr. Yogesh Kumar (AC to SC-9)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 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/writs, order/orders, direction/directions
for the following relief/s:-
“I. To issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the order vide Memo
no. 94 dated 08/01/2024 issued under
signature of District Magistrate, Patna
whereby and whereunder departmental
proceeding was initiated against the
petitioner without any substantive
evidence.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8600 of 2024(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/3
II. Also for issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari to quash the memo
of charge dated 06.01.2024 framed
against the petitioner in course of
departmental proceeding.
III. Also for issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent to stay the departmental
proceeding against the petitioner till the
disposal of present writ application.
IV. For any other relief/reliefs for which
petitioner is found entitled in the eye of
law. ”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
memo of charge framed against the petitioner is not in
accordance with law and therefore, the same should be set aside.
Counsel further submits that the departmental proceeding has
been initiated without any substantive evidence and therefore,
the said proceeding be also stayed.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the counter affidavit has been filed. Counsel
submits that the petitioner has challenged the memo of charge
but, he is not supporting in the enquiry proceeding. Counsel
submits that Prapatra-Ka is not defective. He further submits
that the petitioner was posted as Panchayat Sachiv, Punpun at
Patna High Court CWJC No.8600 of 2024(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/3
the relevant period of time and he was found to have committed
serious financial irregularities and also violated the guidelines
issued by the department. It is due to this reason, the
disciplinary authority viz, the District Magistrate has decided to
initiate the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. He
also submits that in the said departmental proceeding, the
Additional District Magistrate, Departmental Enquiry, Patna has
been appointed as the Conducting Officer and the Block
Development Officer, Punpun as the Presenting Officer.
5. From perusal of Prapatra-Ka, it transpires that
there is an allegation against the present petitioner. As such, this
Court without entering into the merit or demerit of the charge
memo, directs the petitioner to participate in the departmental
proceeding and raise all his grievances before the Enquiry
Officer. It is hereby directed to conclude the proceeding, within
three months.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U
Checking your session…