Ram Sukhit RoyversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8672 of 2020
     ======================================================
     Ram Sukhit Roy, Son of Late Bhola Roy, Resident of Village- Mananpur
     Sadukha, P.S.- Khanpur, District- Samastipur.

                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                          Versus

1.   The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department,
     Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Secretary Expenditure, Finance Department, Government of Bihar,
     Patna.
3.   The Additional Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4.   The Special Secretary-cum-Conducting Officer, Finance Department, Old
     Secretariat, Patna.
5.   The Under Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
                                   Mr. Ankesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                                   Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Advocate
                                   Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Advocate
                                   Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Advocate
                                   Mr. Rohan Sinha, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :      Mr. Naman Nayak, AC to AAG-10
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 02-07-2026

                    This Court has heard Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned

      Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Naman Nayak, learned

      Advocate for the State.

                    2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to

      an order, as contained in Memo No. 3298 dated 19.06.2020,

      issued under the order of Hon’ble Governor and in the signature

      of Additional Secretary, Finance Department, Government of

      Bihar, Patna whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           2/22




         service. The petitioner has also challenged the equiry report

         dated 09.02.2018 whereby the enquiry officer has returned his

         finding of guilt and proved the charges. The order of the

         reviewing authority, as contained in letter no. 5056 dated

         29.09.2020 has also been questioned by filing an interlocutory

         application, bearing I.A. No. 1 of 2025, whereby the review

         application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected, as the

         same has not been found fit for consideration.

                     3. The short facts of the case, which led to filing of

         the present writ petition are summarized hereinbelow:

                     (i) While the petitioner was serving as Senior

         Treasury Officer, Jehanabad has received a PPO No.

         201314093403 dated 07.08.2015, issued by the Accountant

         General, Bihar, Patna with respect to payment of death-cum-

         retirement benefits and gratuity to one Alok Kumar Gupta, son

         of late Suresh Kumar Gupta. On receipt of the aforenoted PPO,

         the petitioner wrote letters dated 24.09.2015, 27.11.2015 and

         29.12.2015 to said Alok Kumar Gupta with a request to provide

         details for sanction of PPO. In the meanwhile, since the validity

         of the PPO dated 07.08.2015 got expired, the petitioner returned

         the PPO to the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna on 08.11.2016

         endorsing as non payable. The Accountant General, Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           3/22




         thereafter re-validated the PPO and resent to the office of the

         petitioner vide letter no. 1509 dated 19.01.2017.

                     (ii) The petitioner on receipt of the re-validated PPO

         sent further letters to said Alok Kumar Gupta on 28.02.2017 and

         19.05.2017. Thereafter Alok Kumar Gupta appeared and stated

         that he had already provided the details. On 01.06.2017, the

         petitioner sent another letter and requested to Alok Kumar

         Gupta regarding providing his Bank details and accordingly, the

         same was provided on 15.06.2017, whereupon the payment of

         remaining gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.62,568/- has been

         credited in the account of Mr. Gupta.

                     (iii) It is to be noted that in the meantime, Mr. Gupta

         lodged a complaint against the petitioner, whereupon show-

         cause notice was issued under Memo No. 7079 dated

         04.09.2017, which was duly replied. The department on being

         dissatisfied with the reply has taken a decision to initiate a

         departmental proceeding against the petitioner. In contemplation

         of departmental proceeding, the petitioner was put under

         suspension and a Memo of charge [Prapatra (Ka)] was framed

         and issued on 04.09.2017 (Aannexure-A/12). The petitioner

         submitted his written statement of defence; The report from the

         Presenting Officer was also called for. Upon completion of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           4/22




         enquiry, the Conducting Officer submitted the enquiry report on

         09.02.2018.

                     (iv) A second show-cause was issued to the petitioner

         vide Memo No.161 dated 28.02.2018, which was duly

         responded by the petitioner by filing a detailed explanation. It

         would also be relevant to mention here that the second show-

         cause notice issued upon the petitioner was also challenged by

         the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 5189 of 2018, however, the same

         was not interfered with and the writ petition came to be

         disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass final

         order on the basis of the enquiry report. Finally, vide order, as

         contained in Memo No. 3298 dated 19.06.2020, the disciplinary

         authority passed the impugned order and the petitioner has been

         dismissed from service.

                     (v) Before inflicting the order of dismissal, the

         respondent authorities also obtained approval from the Bihar

         Public Service Commission. The petitioner preferred review

         application before the Principal Secretary, Finance Department,

         Government of Bihar, Patna, but the same has been rejected, as

         it has not been found fit for consideration.

                     4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner taking this

         Court through the relevant annexures primarily submitted that
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           5/22




         the memo of charge is completely dehors to the provisions of

         the Rule 17(3) and (4) of the Bihar Government Servants

         (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. There is no

         list of witnesses by whom the article of charges are proposed to

         be sustained. It is further contended that on perusal of the

         enquiry report, it would be evident that the enquiry officer has

         not acted as an independent quasi judicial authority, but as a

         representative of the department and it appears that he was bent

         upon to prove the charges by hook and crook without even

         considering the report of the Presenting Officer, who was in fact

         obliged to represent the department. To support the aforesaid

         contention, reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by

         the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of UP Vs. Saroj

         Kumar Sinha : (2010) 2 SCC 772.

                     5. It is further contended that in absence of the

         witnesses, the contents of the document also could not be

         proved. To pursuade the Court, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

         Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National

         Bank & Ors.: (2009) 2 SCC 570 has been read over.

                     6. It is further urged that during the course of enquiry,

         the complainant should have been produced and examined and

         the petitioner may be given the opportunity of cross-
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           6/22




         examination so that truth may come out, but the same has also

         not been done. The non-examination of the complainant would

         have certainly deprived the petitioner from cross-examination;

         reliance has been placed on a decision in the case of Brij Bihari

         Singh Vs. Bihar State Financial Corporation & Ors.: (2015)

         17 SCC 541.

                     7. Drawing the attention of this Court to the order of

         dismissal, it is further contended that the explanation of the

         petitioner has not been deliberated and the order of the

         disciplinary authority completely rests upon the past misconduct

         and consequential punishment order, which was not even the

         part of the memo of charge, hence the disciplinary authority was

         swayed away with the past orders, which ought not to be relied

         upon once it was not the charge and/or has ever been brought on

         record during the course of departmental proceeding. The

         present departmental proceeding is said to be a case of no

         evidence       and     moreover          the   order   of   dismissal   is

         disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.

                     8. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State

         while dispelling the aforesaid contention has submitted that

         since the entire charges are based upon the documentary

         evidence and, as such, in all the cases the production of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           7/22




         witnesses are not required as a matter of rule. Moreover, the

         enquiry officer has returned the finding that the petitioner was

         responsible for withholding of gratuity of the petitioner for a

         pretty long time of two years. The enquiry officer has

         considered all the explanations of the petitioner and found that

         the petitioner has suppressed relevant facts and placed incorrect

         statement with respect to receipt of some of the letters as well as

         the petitioner has also, in order to be saved from the charges,

         subsequently inserted the letter numbers and dates in the general

         despatch register. He further contended that the disciplinary

         authority was competent to consider the past misconduct of the

         petitioner while inflicting the punishment and there is no error

         in the order of the disciplinary authority, who inflicted the order

         of dismissal.

                     9. It is lastly contended that if the impugned order

         suffers from any technicalities, in such circumstances, the order

         should be set aside and remanded to the authority concerned,

         who shall continue the proceeding from the defective stage. To

         support the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed on a

         Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of

         Bihar & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar (L.P.A. No. 496 of 2019).

                     10. This Court has given anxious consideration to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           8/22




         submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the

         respective parties and also meticulously perused the materials

         available on record.

                     11. The very genesis of the initiation of departmental

         proceeding rests upon a complaint filed by one Shri Alok Kumar

         Gupta in respect of non-payment of his gratuity amount,

         alleging therein that despite the authorization letter issued by the

         Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, the petitioner maliciously

         withheld the same for two years by adopting a dilatory tactics.

         This allegation led to issuance of the show-cause notice and on

         being dissatisfied with the response filed by the petitioner, a

         departmental proceeding came to be initiated by framing two

         charges; firstly regarding withholding of payment of gratuity

         amount and, secondly that the petitioner failed to clarify that

         what action was taken by him with respect to issuance of letter

         of authority by the Accountant General on 26.08.2015 and the

         act of the petitioner clearly indicates that he deliberately

         concealed the material facts and adopted a dilatory tactics while

         discharging his duty as Senior Treasury Officer.

                     12. Bare perusal of the Memo of charge, the copy of

         which is marked as Annexure-P/12, it is evident that there is no

         list of witnesses and the charges are proposed to be sustained
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           9/22




         only on the documentary evidences, as disclosed therein. This

         Court has no confrontation with respect to the position of law

         that in a departmental proceeding the charges may also be

         sustained based upon the documentary evidence, if the same are

         admissible by the parties or is of impeccable character or public

         document. Once the very formation of the charges is based upon

         a complaint filed by the complainant, in such circumstances, the

         complainant and the witnesses, who have supported such

         complaint must be produced before the Court to be examined

         and cross-examined in order to arrive at a fair conclusion. It is

         for the said purpose that the legislature while making 2005

         Rules has cautiously incorporated Rule 17(3) and (4) therein by

         specifying that wherever the disciplinary authority proposed to

         hold an inquiry against a government servant under this Rule,

         the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up

         not only the substance of the imputations of misconduct or

         misbehaviour as a definite and distinct article of charge, which

         shall contain statement of all relevant facts including any

         admission or confession made by the Government Servant and a

         list of such document by which, and a list of such witnesses by

         whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.

                     13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          10/22




         of Jai Prakash Saini Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative

         Federation & Ors. : 2026(3) PLJR (SC) 125 has observed that

         unless the charged employee accepts his guilt in clear terms, an

         enquiry on the charges drawn against him would have to be

         held. In the enquiry, the employer/department would have to

         take steps first to lead evidence against the workmen/ delinquent

         charged and give an opportunity to him to cross examine those

         witnesses. Only thereafter, he shall be asked whether he wants

         to lead any evidence and/or submit an explanation about the

         evidence led against him. Even in a case based solely on

         documentary evidence, unless the relied upon documents are

         admitted by the charged employee, a witness would have to be

         examined to prove those documents and when so examined, the

         witness would have to be tendered for cross-examination.

                     Since the department had failed to produce any

         witness in the enquiry even though the charges levelled upon the

         delinquent were denied by him, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set

         aside the order of punishment/recovery.

                     14. It would also be gainful to recapitulate the

         decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop

         Singh Negi (supra) where the Court in clear terms ruled that

         mere production of documents are not enough. Contents of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          11/22




         documentary evidence has to be proved by examining

         witnesses.

                     15. This Court further takes note of the facts that on

         receipt of show-cause notice, the petitioner appeared before the

         conducting officer and filed a detailed written statement of

         defence. After careful consideration of the same, this Court finds,

         the petitioner while explaining the delay in disbursing the

         gratuity amount mentioned that a prompt and procedurally correct

         action has been taken in accordance with the provisions of the

         Bihar Treasury Code, 2011 as well as the Bihar Pension Rules,

         1950 and the instructions issued by the Finance Department. The

         petitioner has categorically submitted before the conducting

         officer that the complainant in his complaint did not mention

         regarding the specific dates on which he appeared before the

         petitioner for disbursement of the gratuity amount, accompanied

         by the Succession Certificate, the personal copy of the Gratuity

         Payment Authority issued by the office of Accountant General, a

         receipt and a self-attested copy of the bank account details, which

         documents were compulsorily required for payment. Rule 236 of

         the Bihar Treasury code, 2011 and the stipulation mentioned in

         the gratuity payment order clearly says that in order to receive

         payment, the personal copy of the authority letter must be
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          12/22




         presented before the Treasury Officer.

                     16. It is also submitted that on receipt of the authority

         letter issued by the office of Accountant General on 26.08.2015,

         letters were issued thrice to the complainant to appear in person

         at the office along with personal copy of the authority letter and

         Bank account details, so as to facilitate the expeditious

         disbursement of payment, but he did not turn up and in the

         meanwhile the authorization for gratuity payment, which

         remains valid only for a period of one year, and in terms of Rule

         240 of the Bihar Treasury Code, the authorization letter was sent

         to    the     office     of    the    Accountant   General   for   its

         renewal/revalidation and the renewal authorization letter was

         received under letter no. 1509 dated 19.01.2017. Soon thereafter

         the letters were sent to the complainant vide letter no. 182 dated

         28.02.2017, letter no. 457 dated 19.05.2017 and letter no. 511

         dated 01.06.2017 directing him to appear in person along with

         all the necessary documents, including the individual copy of

         the gratuity authorization letter. The complainant finally

         appeared on 15.06.2017 and on completion of all the

         formalities, the bill was forwarded to the concerned Bank and

         on the very same day payment was made.

                     17. Despite the specific contention of the petitioner to
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          13/22




         supply evidences received from the complainant regarding the

         specific dates on which he appeared, he was not called upon in

         the enquiry and surprisingly the defence of the petitioner has not

         been accepted only on the ground that some of the letters have

         not been found mentioned in the main despatch register. Neither

         the main register and general register nor any witness has been

         produced to clarify or rebut the statement of the petitioner. Once

         the petitioner has denied of the charges with the specific

         contentions by supporting evidences, it was incumbent upon the

         department to produce the complainant and witness to sustain

         the charges. Non-examination of complainant, in such cases,

         where the charges rest upon the complaint, it clearly violates the

         principles of natural justice and the delinquent gets deprived of

         cross-examination. Reliance in this regard, may be taken to a

         decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

         Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs. Jai Bhagwan : (2011) 6

         SCC 376.

                     18. This principle needs hardly any emphasis that the

         Court while exercising the power of judicial review cannot sit in

         appeal over those findings and assumes the role of appellate

         authority, but this does not mean that in no circumstances, the

         Court can interfere with the conclusion, if there was no evidence
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          14/22




         to support the finding or the findings recorded were such as

         could not have been reached by a prudent man or the findings

         were perverse or made by the dictate of superior authority. The

         enquiry officer performs a quasi judicial function, who upon

         analysis of the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there

         had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on

         the materials available on record. However, in no circumstances,

         he is supposed to be a representative of the department/

         disciplinary authority. This Court also finds that in the case at

         hand, the enquiry officer has acted as a representative of the

         department, once he failed to discuss the opinion of the

         presenting officer, who has in sum and substance not confronted

         the stand of the petitioner, but nonetheless, the enquiry officer

         brought home all the charges, without examining the

         complainant and witnesses, only relying upon the documents,

         the contents of which has never even been proved.

                     19. In case of Saroj Kumar Sinha               (supra) the

         Hon’ble Supreme Court in para. 28, 29 and 30 has ruled 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          15/22




                         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.
                                     29. Apart from the above, by virtue of
                         Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the
                         departmental enquiry had to be conducted in
                         accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is
                         a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice
                         that an employee be given a reasonable
                         opportunity of being heard in any proceedings
                         which may culminate in punishment being
                         imposed on the employee.
                                     30. When a departmental enquiry is
                         conducted against the government servant it
                         cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The
                         enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted
                         with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be
                         wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are
                         required to be observed to ensure not only that
                         justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done.
                         The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          16/22




                         that a government servant is treated fairly in
                         proceedings which may culminate in imposition
                         of punishment including dismissal/removal from
                         service.”
                     20. Now coming to the impugned order, as contained

         in Memo No. 3298 dated 19.06.2020, issued under the signature

         of Additional Secretary, Finance Department, Government of

         Bihar, Patna (Annexure-21), it is pertinent to take note of the

         fact that after submission of the enquiry report by the

         conducting officer, the petitioner was served with the second

         show-cause notice, a detailed reply thereof has been filed by the

         petitioner, the copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-17

         to the writ petition raising all the legal issues, besides his

         detailed explanation as to under what circumstances, the delay

         has occurred in disbursing the remaining amount of gratuity to

         the tune of Rs.62,568/-. But unfortunately there is no cogent

         appreciation of his explanation, rather some of the stand of the

         petitioner has been refuted in flimsy manner by stating that the

         petitioner has placed reliance upon the Bihar Treasury Code,

         which is not fit for consideration, as the departmental

         proceeding being conducted under 2005 Rules. It is further

         opined that it is the delinquent, who should ask for production

         of complainant or witnesses, but he failed to do so thereby
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          17/22




         wrongly shifting the burden of proof upon the petitioner; since

         the enquiry officer has returned the finding of guilt, the

         disciplinary authority has taken a decision to reject the second

         show-cause reply of the petitioner.

                     21. Further while rejecting the reply of the second

         show-cause, the disciplinary authority took note of the previous

         proceeding in relation to which the petitioner was inflicted with

         the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay

         and in the year 2016 a complaint has also been lodged with

         regard to excess withdrawal of Provident fund amount of some

         employees, due to which his salary was also stopped and thus

         the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the

         petitioner is not fit to remain in government service and

         accordingly the order of dismissal came to be passed. The

         previous misconduct of the petitioner had never been formed

         either as a part of the charge or the second show-cause and thus

         the petitioner was never given any opportunity as to whether the

         previous order of punishment and the action initiated against

         him are yet sustained, modified, altered or dependable in view

         of changed circumstances. It would also be gainful to quote the

         relevant paragraph of the decision in the case of Mohd. Yunus

         Khan Vs. State of U.P. : (2010) 10 SCC 539, which underscored
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          18/22




         the aforenoted proposition of law;

                                     “34. The courts below and the
                         statutory authorities failed to appreciate that if
                         the disciplinary authority wants to consider the
                         past conduct of the employee in imposing a
                         punishment, the delinquent is entitled to notice
                         thereof and generally the charge-sheet should
                         contain such an article or at least he should be
                         informed of the same at the stage of the show-
                         cause notice, before imposing the punishment.
                                     35. This Court in Union of India v.
                         Bishamber Das Dogra [(2009) 13 SCC 102 :
                         (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 212] considered the earlier
                         judgments of this Court in State of Assam v.
                         Bimal Kumar Pandit [AIR 1963 SC 1612], India
                         Marine Service (P) Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR 1963
                         SC 528], State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda
                         [AIR 1964 SC 506], Colour-Chem Ltd. v. A.L.
                         Alaspurkar [(1998) 3 SCC 192 : 1998 SCC
                         (L&S) 771 : AIR 1998 SC 948], DG, RPF v. Sai
                         Babu [(2003) 4 SCC 331 : 2003 SCC (L&S)
                         464], Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar
                         Nakate [(2005) 2 SCC 489 : 2005 SCC (L&S)
                         298] and Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Taher Ali
                         [(2007) 8 SCC 656 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 990]
                         and came to the conclusion that it is desirable
                         that the delinquent employee be informed by the
                         disciplinary authority that his past conduct
                         could     be    taken        into   consideration   while
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          19/22




                         imposing the punishment. However, in case of
                         misconduct of a grave nature, even in the
                         absence of statutory rules, the authority may
                         take into consideration the indisputable past
                         conduct/service record of the delinquent for
                         “adding the weight to the decision of imposing
                         the punishment if the fact of the case so
                         required”.


                     22. Prima facie, it appears that the disciplinary

         authority swayed away and influenced with the previous

         conduct of the petitioner, which in the opinion of this Court is

         wholly unsustainable, unless either it forms the part of the

         charges or contains in the second show-cause notice. In any

         circumstances, the petitioner ought to be given sufficient

         opportunity to clarify the position with respect to his past

         conduct, based upon which the extreme punishment of dismissal

         has been passed. It is neither the case of the complainant nor of

         the department that the petitioner has adopted dilatory tactics for

         extraneous reason or demanded any bribe or favour any one and

         for the sake of argument, even if it is accepted that the enquiry

         officer has returned the finding of guilt, the punishment of

         dismissal is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the

         petitioner and shocks the conscience of this court.

                     23. It is also worth mentioning here that against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          20/22




         impugned order of punishment, the petitioner has also preferred

         an exhaustive review application under Rule 24 (2) of the 2005

         Rules before the Government of Bihar, but the same has been

         turned down and rejected by the competent authority, as it has

         not been found fit for consideration. The rejection of the review

         application of the petitioner by holding that the same is found

         not fit for consideration, in the opinion of this court would make

         the entire provision of the review redundant.

                     24. It would be pertinent to mention here that time

         without number, the Court has cautioned the State and its

         authority that a ‘decision’ does not merely mean the

         “conclusion” it embraces within its fold the reasons which form

         the basis for arriving at the “conclusions.” [Vide: Mukhtiar

         Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab : (1995) 1 SCC 760].

         Absence of sound reason is not mere irregularity, but patent

         illegality. However, the reviewing authority has not even

         assigned any reason, much less any speaking and reasoned

         order.

                     25. Before parting with the case, this Court would fail

         to its duty, if the contention of the learned Advocate for the State

         is not dealt with to the extent wherein he submits that once the

         impugned order passed in the departmental proceeding is set
Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          21/22




         aside on account of technical reason, the matter ought to be

         remanded to the authority to commence the enquiry from the

         defective stage and conclude the same in accordance with law

         and pass fresh order. This Court finds that such plea, in the facts

         of the present case, is wholly misconceived and not acceptable.

         It would be worth noting here that where in an enquiry, there

         was no proper evidence led and the conducting officer has acted

         as a representative of the department and based upon the

         enquiry report the disciplinary authority has passed the order of

         disproportionate punishment by showing the previous conduct

         of the petitioner. It would be offering a premium to the

         negligence of the enquiry officer/department and condoing the

         levity with which the departmental enquiry was conducted.

         [Vide Srikant Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors: 2024 SCC

         Online Pat 7877 and The State of Bihar & Ors Vs. Vikash

         Kumar: LPA No. 446 of 2024]

                     26. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and

         the position obtaining in law, this Court finds that the impugned

         enquiry as well as order passed by the disciplinary authority

         contained in Memo No. 3298 dated 19.06.2020 as well as the

         order passed by the Reviewing authority as contained in letter

         no. 5056 dated 29.09.2020 are unsustainable and fit to be set
             Patna High Court CWJC No.8672 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                                       22/22




                      aside and accordingly the impugned orders are hereby quashed.

                      Upon quashing of the impugned orders, the consequences shall

                      follow in accordance with law.

                                  27. The writ petition stands allowed.

                                  28. Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands

                      disposed of

                                  29. There shall be no order as to costs.



                                                  (Harish Kumar, J)

uday/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          02.07.2026
Transmission Date       NA