Patna High Court
Ramesh PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The departmental enquiry was vitiated and the punishment orders were quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, a Jail Superintendent, was punished with withholding of five increments and suspension without salary after a prisoner was shot dead in Hajipur Jail, an incident linked to a warder who supplied a firearm. The petitioner challenged the punishment, arguing lack of oral evidence, denial of cross‑examination, and that the disciplinary authority was functus officio after the initial order. The court examined the departmental enquiry, noting that the enquiry officer relied on a preliminary inquiry report and statements of witnesses who were not produced before the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice as laid down by the Supreme Court. It also held that the Superintendent could not be held directly liable for systemic security lapses that occurred shortly after his posting. Consequently, the court quashed the punishment order, the review order, and the subsequent salary‑denial order, granting the petitioner full consequential benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated by the absence of oral evidence and denial of cross‑examination, breaching natural justice.
- Whether the disciplinary authority became functus officio after imposing the punishment, rendering subsequent show‑cause notices invalid.
- Whether the petitioner, as Superintendent, can be held liable for security lapses leading to a prisoner's death occurring shortly after his posting.
- Whether reliance on a preliminary inquiry report and undisclosed witness statements is permissible under Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and the Prison Manual.
Subjects
- departmental inquiry
- natural justice
- disciplinary proceedings
- prison security
- Bihar CCA Rules 2005
- suspension
- withholding increments
- cross‑examination
- preliminary inquiry
- prison manual
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8620 of 2024
======================================================
Ramesh Prasad son of Sri Ramanand Prasad resident of village Murgaon, Irki,
P.S.- Belaganj, District Gaya.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department (Prison), Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department (Prison), Bihar, Patna.
3. The Joint Secretary Cum Director, Prison and Correctional Services
Directorate, Home Department (Prison), Bihar, Patna.
4. The Joint Commissioner, Department Enquiry, Patna Division, Patna.
5. The Inspector General (Prison and Correctional Services), Bihar,
6. The District Magistrate, Vaishali,
7. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali,
8. The Sub Divisional Officer, Vaishali,
9. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Vaishali.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amish Kumar, A.C. to A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 13-01-2026
In this case, the petitioner has challenged the
punishment order dated 25.05.2022 issued by the Joint
Secretary-cum- Director (Adm.) whereby the petitioner has been
awarded the punishment of withholding of five (5) increments
with cumulative effect as well as the order dated 01.09.2022,
also issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary-cum-
Director (Adm.) by which the review preferred by the petitioner
against the aforesaid punishment order has been rejected. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
2/26
petitioner has further prayed that the departmental proceeding
initiated against him in pursuance of the memo of charge
contained in memo no. 6159 dated 11.09.2020 be quashed and
to direct the respondents to provide all consequential benefits.
Furthermore, the petitioner has also challenged the show cause
notice dated 13.09.2022 issued by the Joint Secretary-cum-
Director, Prison and Reform Services Directorate, Bihar through
which an explanation has been sought from the petitioner as to
why he be not paid anything except subsistence allowance for
the period of suspension as well as the order dated 20.12.2022
passed by the Joint Secretary-cum-Director, whereby it has been
directed that during the period of suspension the petitioner will
be paid nothing except subsistence allowance.
2. The brief facts of this case are that while the
petitioner was posted as Jail Superintendent at Hajipur Jail on
03.01.2020, in the afternoon, one prisoner namely, Manish
Kumar @ Netaji @ Telia was shot dead inside the jail by
another prisoner namely, Raja Babu. Upon enquiry, it came to
light that one Jail Staff namely, Raj Kumar, who was posted as
Warder in the Hajipur Jail, in conspiracy with prisoner - Raja
Babu, had supplied the firearm which was used in the incident.
Immediately, after the incident, a search was conducted by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
3/26
District Magistrate, Vaishali and the Superintendent of Police,
Vaishali during which a recovery/confiscation of 1 pistol, 2 live
cartridges, 4 empty cartridges, 6 mobile phones, 2 chargers, 2
small steel scissors, 1 clay pipe (chilam), 2 iron chisels and
other prohibited articles was made inside the jail premises.
Thereafter, a joint report dated 04.01.2020 was prepared by the
District Magistrate, Vaishali and the Superintendent of Police,
Vaishali regarding the incident dated 03.01.2020 of shooting of
prisoner was submitted to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department, Bihar, Patna vide letter dated 05.01.2020 and a
copy of the same was also sent to the I.G., Prison, Bihar, Patna.
Again, on 05.01.2020, in light of the direction given by the
Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Bihar, a surprise
inspection of District Jail, Hajipur was conducted by a team
headed by the District Magistrate, Vaishali and the
Superintendent of Police, Vaishali. During the surprise
inspection, 3 mobile phones, 1 earphone, 1 USB and other
restricted materials were recovered and the petitioner was found
guilty for recovery of objectionable/prohibited items inside the
jail premises and the inspecting team also found multiple
loopholes/lapses in the infrastructure and security of the jail. On
the basis of the aforesaid inspection report, the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
4/26
suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding vide
order dated 14.01.2020 and show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner on 18.04.2020, which was responded to by the
petitioner on 22.06.2020. Finding the response of the petitioner
to be unsatisfactory, the respondents vide resolution dated
11.09.2020, initiated a departmental proceeding against the
petitioner under the provisions of Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 and
issued the memo of charge against the petitioner.
3. The charges levelled against the petitioner
were as under:-
¼2½ f}rh; Hkkx & vopkj ;k dnkpkj ds ykaNuksa dk lkj
1- fnukad 03-01-2020 dks eaMy dkjk] gkthiqj esa ,d
fopkjk/khu canh euh"k dqekj mQZ usrkth mQZ rsfy;k iså vejsUæ
dqekj flag dks dkjk ds vanj ,d vU; lalhfer canh jktk ckcw }kjk
xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj nh x;hA mä ?kVuk ds rqjar ckn ftyk
inkf/kdkjh] oS'kkyh ,oa iqfyl v/kh{kd] oS'kkyh }kjk eaMy dkjk]
gkthiqj esa dh xbZ vkSpd ryk'kh esa okMZ la[;k&6 ds nf{k.k&if'pe
dksuk ij 'kkSpky; ds nf{k.k nhokj ds ikl dsyk ds xkNh esa Nqikdj
j[kk gqvk 01 fiLVy] 02 ftUnk dkjrwl] 04 dkjrwl dk [kks[kk] 06
eksckbZy Qksu] 02 pktZj 02 LVhy dh NksVh dSaph] feêh dk 01
fpye] vkbZfM;k dk 02 fle] yksgs dh 02 Nsuh vkfn çfrcaf/kr
lkekxzhz;ka cjken dh x;hA
dkjk esa fiLVy tSlh fuf’k) lkexzh ds izos”k ls Li’V gS fd
dkjk ds lqj{kk dfeZ;ksa dh ryk”kh djkus dh O;oLFkk dk vuqJo.k ,oa
Ik;Zos{k.k dkjk/kh{kd Jh jes”k izlkn }kjk ugha fd;k tk jgk FkkA ;g
fcgkj dkjk gLrd&2012 ds fu;e&796 (i) (ii) dk mYya?ku gSA
2- dkjk esa fnukad 03-01-2020 dks canh dh gR;k dh ?kVuk
dh tkap ds fy, xfBr f}lnL;h; tkap ny ds lnL; lgk;d dkjk
egkfujh{kd ¼{ks=½ ,oa lgk;d dkjk egkfujh{kd ¼eq½ }kjk tkap ds
dze esa ik;k x;k fd ?kVuk ds fnu ds lhlhVhoh QqVst esa lHkh canh
tgka&rgka mDr ifjlj esa ?kqers fn[k jgs FksA uhps lqj{kk dehZ }kjk
canh;ksa dks muds okMZ@bUDykstj esa lalhfer ugha fd;k tk jgk FkkA
bl çdkj Li"V gS fd Jh izlkn dk vius v/khuLFkksa ij
dksbZ fu;a=.k ugha FkkA ;g mudh ?kksj ykijokgh ,oa fcgkj dkjk
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
5/26
gLrd] 2012 ds fu;e&796 ¼ii½ ,oa 797 ¼v½ ds mYya?ku dk |ksrd
gSA
3- f}lnL;h; tkap ny ds tkap ds dze esa ik;k x;k fd
fopkjk/khu canh jktk ckcq ftlds }kjk canh euh’k dh gR;k dh x;h]
mldk miLFkkiu vU; rhu lg vfHk;qDrksa ¼jfo”kadj dqekj mQZ jfo
feJk] dqUnu dqekj] /kuUt; dqekj mQZ ckny½ ds lkFk xsjksy Fkkuk
dkaM la[;k&397@19 G.R.5957/19 esa fnukad 03-01-2020 dks
fu/kkZfjr Fkk] fdUrq mls U;k;ky; esa miLFkkfir ugha fd;k x;kA
;g Jh jes”k izlkn] dkjk/kh{kd dh drZO; ds izfr
ykijokgh ,oa v/khuLFkksa ij fu;a=.k ds vHkko dks n”kkZrk gSA ;g
fcgkj dkjk gLrd] 2012 ds fu;e&796 ¼ii½ ds izko/kku dk mYya?ku
gSA
4- iqu% fnukad 05-01-2020 dks ftyk inkf/kdkjh] oS'kkyh ,oa
iqfyl v/kh{kd] oS”kkyh }kjk dkjk ds vkSpd fujh{k.k esa lSElax
dEiuh dk xksYMu dyj dk fcuk fle dk 01 eksckbZy] lSElax
dEiuh dk usoh Cyw dyj dk 01 eksckbZy] Kekai Company dk
fcuk fle dk usoh Cyw dyj dk 01 eksckbZy] lQsn jax dk 01
b;jQksu] lQsn jax dk USB dk 01 NksVk rkj] fVfQudSfj;j ds
iRrj dh cuh gqbZ 01 pkdquqek NksVh MaMh] 01 eksckbZy pktZj] 02
eksckbZy dh cSVªh] [kSuh dk 01 iqfM+;k] 01 “ksfoax jstj] 02 ekfpl] 04
dkMZ jhMj] 18 ihl NM+ dk NksVk VqdM+k] 01 glqvk] 01 [kqjih] xkatk
tSls inkFkZ dh 01 iqfM+;k ,oa 6385-00 :i;s uxn cjken fd;s x;sA
dkjk ds vUnj eksckbZy] uxn jkf”k ,oa Hkkjh la[;k esa
vkifRrtud@izfrcaf/kr lkefxz;ksa dh cjkenxh ls Li’V gS fd dkjk
ds lqj{kk ekudksa dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA ;g Jh jes”k
izlkn] dkjk/kh{kd dh drZO;ghurk] inh; nkf;Ro ds izfr ?kksj
ykijokgh ,oa vius v/khuLFk dfeZ;ksa ij fu;a=.k ds vHkko dk |ksrd
gSA ;g fcgkj&dkjk gLrd 2012 ds fu;e&140] 796 (i), (ii)] 870
¼iii½ ds fofgr çko/kku ds foijhr gSA
5- dkjk esa ek= nks fnu ds varjky ij dh xbZ Nkisekjh esa
eksokbZy ,oa Hkkjh ek=k esa çfrcaf/kr lkefxz;ksa dh cjkenxh ls Li"V
gksrk gS fd dkjk/kh{kd] Jh jes'k dqekj dk dkjk dfeZ;ksa ij dksbZ
fu;a=.k ugha Fkk ,oa dkjk esa Hkkjh ek=k esa çfrcaf/kÙk lkefxz;ksa ds
ços'k dks jksd ikus esa os iw.kZr% vl{ke FksA blh dk ifj.kke gS fd
fnukad 03-01-2020 dks dkjk esa voS/k :i ls ços'k ik;s vkXus;k'= dk
mi;ksx dj ,d canh }kjk nwljs fopkjk/khu canh euh"k dqekj mQZ
usrkth mQZ rsfy;k dh xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj nh x;hA
mijksä ls Li"V gS fd Jh çlkn }kjk vius inh; nkf;Roksa
ds lE;d~ fuoZgu esa xEHkhj ykijokgh cjrh xbZ gS ftl dkj.k dkjk
tSls vfr lqjf{kr {ks= esa canh gR;k tSlh ?kVuk ?kfVr gqbZ rFkk ftyk
ç'kklu dh yxkrkj nks frfFk;ksa ij dh xbZ Nkisekjh esa dkjk esa Hkkjh
ek=k esa çfrcaf/kr lkefxz;ksa dh cjkenxh gqbZ gSA Jh çlkn }kjk
fcgkj&dkjk gLrd 2012 ds fu;e&140] 796 ¼i½] ¼ii½] 797 ¼v½ ,oa
870 ¼iii½ dk Li"V :i ls mYya?ku djrs gq, drZO; ds çfr xaHkhj
ykijokgh cjrh xbZ gSA ;g fcgkj ljdkjh lsod vkpkj fu;ekoyh]
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
6/26
1976 ds fu;e&3 ¼1½] ¼2½ dk Hkh mYya?ku gSAÞ
4. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted
his report vide letter dated 22.11.2021 finding the charge no.1 to
be proved and rest four charges to be partially proved.
Thereafter, the second show-cause notice was issued to the
petitioner along with the enquiry report. Responding to the
same, the petitioner filed his reply to the second show-cause
notice. Being dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the
disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withholding of
five increment with cumulative effect. Against the order of the
punishment, the petitioner filed a review, which was dismissed
vide order dated 01.09.2022. Thereafter, a show-cause notice
dated 13.09.2022 was issued to the petitioner asking him an
explanation as to why he be not paid anything except
subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. Responding
to the same, the petitioner filed his reply to the said show-cause
notice. By the order dated 20.12.2022 issued by the Joint
Secretary-cum- Director, it was directed that during the period
of suspension the petitioner would be paid nothing save and
except the subsistence allowance.
5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that since the charges against the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
7/26
revolves around the alleged non-monitoring of frisking of jail
staffs, no control over subordinates, lack of supervision upon
subordinates, dereliction of duty and incompetence, therefore it
is submitted that the petitioner is a diligent government servant
and his exceptional work is recognized even to the extent that
the petitioner is a recipients of the President’s Correctional
Service Medal. Adverting to several annexures, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the petitioner
has taken several steps to ensure that the security and order is
maintained inside the jail premises, including the raising of
boundary wall height, installation of jammers and CCTV
cameras. Further, the petitioner has regularly given specific
directions to his subordinate officers and staffs to ensure proper
security in the jail premises and ensure strict adherence to the
Prison Manual. Specifically adverting to one letter dated
19.06.2019, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner never
hesitated to perform his duties and, in fact, when at one instance
the petitioner came to know about a jail staff who was not
working satisfactorily, the petitioner had promptly written to the
Inspector General to depute other personnel. Therefore, it is the
categorical submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner took every possible steps in order to ensure
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
8/26
that the security inside the jail premises is maintained. However,
incident leading to the death of one of the prisoner was a result
of a concerted conspiracy which was hatched by one of the jail
staffs for which the petitioner cannot be fastened with any direct
liability.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next
submits that the thrust of the allegation against the petitioner is
that of dereliction of duty and lapses in maintaining the security
in the jail premises, however, the petitioner after availing a long
leave of three months, had just joined a day prior i.e. on
02.01.2020 and the unfortunate incident of shooting took place
on 03.01.2020 in the afternoon and therefore, the lapses and the
systemic issue of the jail cannot be fastened with the petitioner.
He further submits that in the year 2018 the jail premises was
inspected by the then District Magistrate, Vaishali and during
the inspection certain irregularities and deficiencies were found
in the infrastructure of the jail premises including the short
height of the boundary wall of the jail and thereafter, the District
Magistrate had issued certain directions and in pursuance of the
said directions, the petitioner time and again has been writing
letters to the Executive Engineer, Building Construction
Department and I.G. Prisons, Bihar to improve the infrastructure
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
9/26
and security at Hajipur Jail especially with regard to increasing
the height of perimeter/boundary wall as the Hajipur jail which
is surrounded on three sides by busy road and due to short
height of the boundary wall, prohibited items were constantly
thrown inside the jail premises. The petitioner had also
requisitioned for installing a jammer and more CCTV cameras
around the jail premises but no action was taken.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner has also been writing letters to his
subordinates including Assistant Superintendent and in charge
of BMP and other jail staffs reminding them to ensure proper
frisking of personnel who enter the jail premises and even
further direction was issued to take appropriate action in case of
recovery of objectionable items inside the jail. However, despite
proper monitoring and supervision by the petitioner, one of the
jail staffs namely, Raj Kumar in conspiracy with one inmate
namely Raja Babu delivered the firearm inside the jail because
of which, the incident leading to the death of a prisoner took
place on 03.01.2020.
8. It has also been submitted that on perusal of
memo of charge, it transpires that the charges were sought to be
proved through two oral witnesses who were examined jointly
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
10/26
by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of a questionnaire handed
over to them and it is apparent that they have said nothing
against the petitioner. Further, the Enquiry Officer found charge
no. 1 to be proved and charge nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 to be partially
proved based on no cogent evidence because the contents of the
joint report were not proved by the authors of the report namely
the then Superintendent of Police, Vaishali and the then District
Magistrate, Vaishali.
9. It has categorically been submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has
placed heavy reliance on the statement of Raj Kumar (warder of
the jail), who supplied the firearm to prisoner Raja Babu, but
aforesaid Raj Kumar was not produced as a witness in the
departmental proceeding and the petitioner was not given any
opportunity to cross examine him. Therefore, the reliance of
enquiry officer on the statement of Raj Kumar to bring home
charge no.1 is unsustainable in the eye of law. In support of this
submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank reported as
2009 (2) SCC 570.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
11/26
emphatically submitted that in the present case, the Enquiry
Officer has examined two witnesses jointly on the basis of
questionnaire, which is bad in law because it is the
representative of the department i.e. the Presenting Office who
is supposed to lead evidence on behalf of the department to
bring home the charges. The petitioner was also not given any
opportunity to cross examine the two witnesses. In support of
this submission, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Saroj
Kumar Sinha reported as (2010) 2 SCC 772
11. It has categorically been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental
proceeding comes to an end after the impugned punishment
order has been passed and the disciplinary authority becomes
functus officio and thus ceases to have any jurisdiction to
exercise power under Rule 11(5) of the Bihar CCA Rules but, in
the instant case, even after the conclusion of the departmental
proceeding the respondents proceeded in the matter and another
show cause notice dated 12.09.2022 was issued through which
an explanation was sought from the petitioner on the issue as to
why he be not paid anything except the subsistence allowance
for the period of suspension and subsequently another order
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
12/26
dated 20.12.2022 was passed directing that during the period of
suspension the petitioner would be paid nothing except the
subsistence allowance. In support of the above stated facts, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI v. S.N.
Goyal reported as (2008) 8 SCC 92.
12. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the power and duties of Jail Superintendent is
defined in Rule 796 and 797 of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012,
which provides that the Superintendent of Jail is the overall in-
charge of the administration of the prison and is supposed to
monitor and supervise the overall functioning of the jail and as
per Rule 800 of the said Manual, it is Deputy Superintendent
(Adm. & Security) who is mainly and specifically responsible
for search and seizure at the main gate and further he has to
ensure that no prohibited/banned items are admitted inside the
prison and no such items or activity as may endanger the
security of the prison be allowed inside the prison. Therefore,
the petitioner is being unnecessarily dragged in the departmental
proceeding on vague and non-specific charges.
13. The respondent authorities have filed two
counter affidavits in the matter, in which they have reiterated the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
13/26
facts of the case and have vehemently submitted that the
impugned orders have been passed by the respondent authorities
only after following the proper procedure prescribed by law. It
has been stated in the counter affidavits that on two occasions
the search was conducted in the jail premises and several
restricted/prohibited articles have been recovered inside the jail
premises and it was also found that there was no arrangement
for intensive searching at the gate of the prison and the system
of searching the jail security personnel was not being monitored
and supervised by the petitioner. It has also been stated in the
counter affidavits that the recovery of huge amount of
objectionable / prohibited articles including the firearms and
live cartridges inside the jail premises is itself indicative of
gross negligence, dereliction of duty and lack of control of the
petitioner over his subordinates.
14. I have considered the submissions of the
parties and perused the materials on record.
15. From the perusal of the records of the case, it
appears that on 03.01.2020 one of the prisoners at Hajipur Jail
had shot another prisoner leading to the death of the other
prisoner. Immediately thereafter, a search was conducted
wherein multiple prohibited articles were seized inside the jail
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
14/26
premises and an enquiry was conducted on 03.01.2020 itself
wherein prima facie five personnel were found liable for the
lapses in the jail security leading to the aforesaid death of one of
the prisoners, however, the present petitioner was neither named
nor any adverse remark was made against him. Subsequently,
another Two-Men committee conducted the inspection of the
jail premises, in which the petitioner was found guilty for
recovery of objectionable / prohibited items from the jail
premises. On the basis of the aforesaid inspection report, the
petitioner was suspended in contemplation of disciplinary
proceeding and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner,
which was responded to by the petitioner. Thereafter, the
respondents vide resolution dated 11.09.2020, initiated a
departmental proceeding against the petitioner under the
provisions of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and issued the memo of
charge against the petitioner.
16. The Enquiry Officer, has found charge no.1
to be proved and rest charges to be partially proved. From the
enquiry report, it appears that the Enquiry Officer has found the
charge no.1 to have been proved against the petitioner, however,
he has failed to consider the statements of the witnesses
produced on behalf of the petitioner in his defence. Though
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
15/26
heavy reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer on the
joint enquiry report but the said joint report was not proved by
its authors. Further, the Enquiry Officer has again placed heavy
reliance on the statement of Raj Kumar, jail staff, who is alleged
to have supplied the firearm to the prisoner, but he was not
produced as a witness in the departmental proceeding.
17. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Satyendra Singh vs. State of U.P., reported as 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3325, relying upon the earlier precedents in
the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) and Nirmala J. Jhala vs.
State of Gujarat & Anr. reported as (2013) 4 SCC 301 has held
as under:-
“13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held
that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary
proceeding proposing charges of a major
punishment is mandatory. Reference in this
regard may be held to Roop Singh Negi v.
Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570 and
Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat (2013) 4
SCC 301.
14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi, this Court held
that mere production of documents is not
enough, contents of documentary evidence have
to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant
extract thereof reads as under:-
“14.Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
16/26
proceeding. The enquiry officer
performs a quasi-judicial function. The
charges levelled against the delinquent
officer must be found to have been
proved. The enquiry officer has a duty
to arrive at a finding upon taking into
consideration the materials brought on
record by the parties. The purported
evidence collected during investigation
by the investigating officer against all
the accused by itself could not be treated
to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to
prove the said documents. The
management witnesses merely tendered
the documents and did not prove the
contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was
placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR
which could not have been treated as
evidence.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the
only basic evidence whereupon reliance
has been placed by the enquiry officer
was the purported confession made by
the appellant before the police.
According to the appellant, he was forced
to sign on the said confession, as he was
tortured in the police station. The
appellant being an employee of the Bank,
the said confession should have been
proved. Some evidence should have
been brought on record to show that he
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
17/26
had indulged in stealing the bank draft
book. Admittedly, there was no direct
evidence. Even there was no indirect
evidence. The tenor of the report
demonstrates that the enquiry officer had
made up his mind to find him guilty as
otherwise he would not have proceeded
on the basis that the offence was
committed in such a manner that no
evidence was left.
…
19. The judgment and decree passed against
the respondent in Narinder Mohan Arya
case [(2006) 4 SCC 713: 2006 SCC
(L&S) 840] had attained finality. In the
said suit, the enquiry report in the
disciplinary proceeding was considered,
the same was held to have been based on
no evidence. The appellant therein in the
aforementioned situation filed a writ
petition questioning the validity of the
disciplinary proceeding, the same was
dismissed. This Court held that when a
crucial finding like forgery was arrived
at on evidence which is non est in the eye
of the law, the civil court would have
jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.
This Court emphasised that a finding
can be arrived at by the enquiry officer
if there is some evidence on record.
…”(emphasis supplied)
15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
18/26
Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC
772 wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-
parte inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer
to examine the evidence presented by the
Department to find out whether the unrebutted
evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges
are proved. The relevant observations made in
Saroj Kumar Sinha are as follows:—
“28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-
judicial authority is in the position of an
independent adjudicator. He is not
supposed to be a representative of the
department/disciplinary authority /
Government. His function is to examine
the evidence presented by the
Department, even in the absence of the
delinquent official to see as to whether
the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved. In the
present case the aforesaid procedure
has not been observed. Since no oral
evidence has been examined the
documents have not been proved, and
could not have been taken into
consideration to conclude that the
charges have been proved against the
respondents.
….
33. As noticed earlier in the present case
not only the respondent has been denied
access to documents sought to be relied
upon against him, but he has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
19/26
condemned unheard as the inquiry officer
failed to fix any date for conduct of the
enquiry. In other words, not a single
witness has been examined in support of
the charges levelled against the
respondent. The High Court, therefore,
has rightly observed that the entire
proceedings are vitiated having been
conducted in complete violation of the
principles of natural justice and total
disregard of fair play. The respondent
never had any opportunity at any stage of
the proceedings to offer an explanation
against the allegations made in the
charge-sheet.” (emphasis supplied)
16. In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala, this Court
held that evidence recorded in a preliminary
inquiry cannot be used for a regular inquiry as
the delinquent is not associated with it and the
opportunity to cross-examine persons
examined in preliminary inquiry is not given.
Relevant extract thereof reads as under:—
“42. A Constitution Bench of this Court
in Amalendu Ghosh v. North Eastern
Railway [AIR 1960 SC 992], held that
the purpose of holding a preliminary
inquiry in respect of a particular alleged
misconduct is only for the purpose of
finding a particular fact and prima
facie, to know as to whether the alleged
misconduct has been committed and on
the basis of the findings recorded in
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
20/26
preliminary inquiry, no order of
punishment can be passed. It may be
used only to take a view as to whether a
regular disciplinary proceeding against
the delinquent is required to be held.
43. Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal
Shah v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC
1854] a Constitution Bench of this Court
while taking a similar view held that
preliminary inquiry should not be
confused with regular inquiry. The
preliminary inquiry is not governed by
the provisions of Article 311(2) of the
Constitution of India. Preliminary
inquiry may be held ex parte, for it is
merely for the satisfaction of the
Government though usually for the sake
of fairness, an explanation may be sought
from the government servant even at such
an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no
right to be heard as the inquiry is merely
for the satisfaction of the Government as
to whether a regular inquiry must be
held. The Court further held as under :
(AIR p. 1862, para 12)
“12.… There must therefore be no
confusion between the two
enquiries and it is only when the
government proceeds to hold a
departmental enquiry for the
purpose of inflicting on the
government servant one of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
21/26
three major punishments indicated
in Article 311 that the government
servant is entitled to the protection
of that article [not prior to that].”
44. In Narayan Dattatraya
Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra
[(1997) 1 SCC 299, this Court dealt with
the issue and held as under:
“…a preliminary inquiry has
nothing to do with the enquiry
conducted after issue of charge-
sheet. The preliminary enquiry is
only to find out whether
disciplinary enquiry should be
initiated against the delinquent.
Once regular enquiry is held
under the Rules, the preliminary
enquiry loses its importance and,
whether preliminary enquiry was
held strictly in accordance with
law or by observing principles of
natural justice of (sic) nor,
remains of no consequence.”
45. In view of the above, it is evident that
the evidence recorded in preliminary
inquiry cannot be used in regular
inquiry as the delinquent is not
associated with it, and opportunity to
cross-examine the persons examined in
such inquiry is not given. Using such
evidence would be violative of the
principles of natural justice.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
22/26
(emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua
non to record the evidence of the witnesses for
proving the charges. Having tested the facts of
the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules
of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court
in the cases of Roop Singh Negi and Nirmala J.
Jhala, we are of the firm view that the inquiry
proceedings conducted against the appellant
pertaining to charges punishable with major
penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the
eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever
was recorded by the department in support of
the charges.
18. As a consequence, thereof, the High Court fell
into grave error of law while interfering in the
well-reasoned judgment rendered by the
Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal had quashed the
order imposing penalty upon the appellant.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
18. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of K. Prabhakar Hegde vs. Bank of Baroda reported
as Neutral Citation 2025 INSC 997 has considered the multiple
precedents and has summarized the position of law as under:-
“25. The upshot of the aforesaid decisions is that:
i. A preliminary inquiry is conducted for
the purposes of determining whether
regular disciplinary proceedings are
called for or not;
ii. A preliminary inquiry report is an internal
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
23/26
document;
iii. A preliminary inquiry report or the
findings therein cannot be used to come
to conclusions recorded in the report of
inquiry if such preliminary inquiry
report/findings are based on oral and/or
documentary evidence which are
obtained behind the back of the charged
employee and such oral/documentary
evidence are not presented in the
inquiry in the presence of such
employee;
iv. If a preliminary inquiry report or the
findings therein are sought to be relied
on, the witnesses whose evidence was
relied on in preparing the same ought to
be brought before the inquiry officer
and the charged officer afforded an
opportunity to cross-examine them;
v. If a preliminary inquiry report is sought to
be relied upon in the inquiry report, then
such preliminary inquiry report must be
provided to the delinquent employee;
vi. Once a chargesheet is drawn up and has
been provided to the charged officer
detailing the charges, the preliminary
inquiry report is of no consequence and
need not be provided to him.”
19. Applying the law laid down in the afore-
quoted decisions and the facts of the present case, it is clear that
the petitioner was prevented from cross-examining the crucial
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
24/26
witness i.e. Raj Kumar, who was the staff of the Jail and had
allegedly admitted of supplying the firearm inside the jail
premises since, he was not produced as a witness in the
disciplinary proceeding. Further, though in the departmental
proceeding the petitioner had relied on the relevant Rules under
the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, to contend that it was the
categorical responsibility of the Deputy Superintendent
(Administration and Security) to ensure safety and security in
the jail premises and the present petitioner being the
Superintendent was in-charge of overall matters relating to the
security but, the aforersaid contention of the petitioner has not
been dealt with in the impugned enquiry report and further the
Deputy Superintendent (Administration & Security) was also
never examined as a witness in the departmental enquiry.
20. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that the
disciplinary proceedings has been proceeded without meeting
the threshold of the departmental proceeding before arriving to a
finding of guilt since the preliminary inquiry report and the
statement of the jail staff, who admittedly supplied the firearm
inside the jail, has been used to come to a conclusion of guilty
of the petitioner without producing or proving such
oral/documentary evidence independently before the Enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
25/26
Officer, inasmuch as, merely by enclosing documents with the
memo of charge would not become a piece of evidence. Though
the strict rules of evidence does not apply in a case of
disciplinary proceeding but the principles of natural justice
would require that the authors of such documents would present
themselves before the Enquiry Officer to prove the contents
thereof and withstand the test of cross-examination by the
delinquent. It is settled that the threshold required in a
disciplinary proceeding is definitely not that of ‘beyond all
reasonable doubt’, however, even in a disciplinary proceeding
the finding of guilt must be based on cogent and relevant
materials which are proved on the threshold of preponderance of
possibilities.
21. This Court has also noted the fact the
petitioner after availing a long leave of three months, had just
joined a day prior to the incident of shooting which took place
on 03.01.2020. Therefore, on this count also, the lapses and the
systemic issue of the jail cannot be strictly fastened with the
petitioner particularly in absence of any specific allegation of
wrong doing or incompetence.
22. Considering the aforesaid facts and also the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-
Patna High Court CWJC No.8620 of 2024 dt.13-01-2026
26/26
quoted decisions, the enquiry report and all subsequent orders
stand vitiated.
23. Accordingly, the impugned order of
punishment dated 25.05.2022 and the revisional order dated
01.09.2022 are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order
dated 20.12.2022, by which the petitioner has been denied the
full salary during the suspension period, is also quashed and set
aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential
benefits in accordance with law.
24. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, this writ petition is allowed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 14.10.2025
Uploading Date 13.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…