Patna High Court
Shri Arun Kumar IIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court held that the disciplinary authority’s findings were not perverse or unsupported and the penalty was not strikingly disproportionate, thus the petition seeking to set aside the suspension and penalty must fail.
Summary
Shri Arun Kumar‑II, a District & Additional Sessions Judge, was suspended for alleged unauthorized absence during the COVID‑19 period and was penalised with stoppage of two increments. He contended that his leave applications were rejected despite medical illness and that the disciplinary inquiry was based on conjecture, seeking relief including setting aside the suspension and penalty. The High Court examined the departmental inquiry report, the Governor’s order under Section 20 of the Bihar Judicial Services Rules, and relevant Supreme Court precedents on proportionality and judicial review. It held that the punishment was not strikingly disproportionate and that the court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to re‑appraising the evidence of the disciplinary authority. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the suspension and penalty intact.
Issues considered
- The legality of the suspension and penalty imposed on a judicial officer for alleged unauthorized absence.
- Whether the disciplinary authority’s findings were perverse, unsupported by evidence, or violative of natural justice.
- Whether the punishment of stoppage of two increments is strikingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
- Scope of judicial review under Article 226 in departmental disciplinary matters.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- departmental inquiry
- natural justice
- proportionality
- judicial service
- POCSO Act
- Article 226
- review petition
- increment stoppage
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8698 of 2025
======================================================
Shri Arun Kumar II Son of Sri Prem Chand, Resident of 183/10, Band Gali
near Aggarwal Dharamshalla, P.S. Samana, District Patiala, Punjab, at present
psoted as District and Additional Sessions Judge- V, Civil Courts, Begusarai,
Pin Code- 851101, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna, Bihar.
4. The Registrar (Administration), Patna High Court, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gaurav Kumar
For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Standing Counsel (11)
For Administrative Side : Mr. Piyush Lal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
5 12-03-2026 The petitioner, Shri Arun Kumar-II has filed this writ
petition seeking for following reliefs:-
i) To set aside the order dated
29.10.2024 passed by the Hon'ble
Governor, Bihar in Misc. Case No. 09
of 2024 filed by petitioner namely Arun
Kumar-II, for review U/S 20 of Bihar
Judicial Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules 2020 for
setting aside the order of punishment
bearing No. 9009/2024 Legal Cell
dated 07.02.2024 imposed the penalty
Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 2025(5) dt.12-03-2026
2/12
of stoppage of two increments with
cumulative effects and order dt.
17.02.2024 of Appointment Section
passed by the Hon'ble High Court,
Patna after completion of departmental
proceeding against the petitioner.
ii) And further be pleased to set aside
the order bearing no. 9009/2024/ Legal
Cell dated 07.02.2024 imposed the
penalty of stoppage of two increment
with cumulative effects and order dt.
17.02.2024 of Appointment Section to
the extent that he will be entitled to
subsistence allowance only for the said
period which has already been paid,
passed by the Hon'ble High Court,
Patna without considering the all facts
and circumstances of the whole episode
with regard to the petitioner, though he
had raised the irregularities which was
occurred during departmental
proceeding conducted by the Inquiry
Officer during whole proceeding.
iii) Petitioner may be given full salary
alongwith all allowances, benefits and
consequential reliefs of suspension
period till his revocation of suspension
by the respondent dated 17.02.2024
vide memo no. 11228 by the Patna High
Court.
iv) Further respondent be directed to
Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 2025(5) dt.12-03-2026
3/12
grant leaves as per Bihar Service code
to the petitioner from 24.08.2021 to
10.06.2022 in the light of leave
application of petitioner submitted on
17.06.2022 and other pending leaves.
v) To declare the order of suspension
dated 19.05.2022 and the said period
from 19.05.2022 to 16.02.2024 as null
and void, inoperative and against the
law and rule and in violation of
principle of natural justice and in the
violation of guidelines / law laid down
by the hon'ble Apex Court of India in a
case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs.
Union of India.
vi) Any other relief/ reliefs may be
granted to the petitioner as per the law
of the land.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was posted at
Begusarai in the capacity of District & Additional Sessions
Judge-V, Begusarai, Bihar and during the period of Covid-19, he
was posted as Special Judge, POCSO at Katihar. He submitted a
leave application on 13.08.2021 for casual leave for five days
and simultaneously sought for permission to leave the
headquarters to visit his home. It is the further case of the
petitioner that while he was at his home in Punjab, he felt
serious breathlessness, weakness, fever and depression etc. and
Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 2025(5) dt.12-03-2026
4/12
he got treated by the doctors, who suggested him complete rest
and precautions and, therefore, he had no option at that time to
come to the headquarters for joining the duty. However, he
intimated to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Katihar,
regarding his inability to join his duty vide mail dated
24.08.2021. However, he received a communication from the
Authority that his application has been rejected for extension of
leave and then he received an intimation on 21.05.2022 through
email from the District Judge, Katihar regarding his suspension.
3. It appears that in the disciplinary proceeding the
following charges were framed which are as follows:-
“Article of Charge framed against Sri
Arun Kumar-II, Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Katihar (under
suspension)
Sri Arun Kumar-II,
Additional District and Sessions Judge-
VI, Katihar while functioning as
Special Judge, POCSO Act, Katihar,
since 24.08.2021 till date has remained
absent from his station and duty in an
unauthorized manner without
permission, as also without any
application for leave and that too
despite and opportunity with direction
to apply for leave, and has also
continued to retain charge of his said
Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 2025(5) dt.12-03-2026
5/12
Court and office since 19.05.2022 till
date in an unauthorized manner in
violation of specific directions issued to
him vide Orders bearing memo Nos.
30314 dated 19.05.2022 and 138/2022
dated 20.05.2022 to make over the
same immediately on his suspension
and in turn overburdening the incharge
Judicial Officer of his Court during the
entire period of ten months from
24.08.2021 till date.
The aforesaid acts and
omissions of Sri Arun Kumar-II prima
facie show gross misconduct of
indiscipline, wilful disobedience,
dereliction of duty and intention to
abandon service thus unbecoming of
and unfit to continue as a Judicial
Officer of the Bihar Superior Judicial
Services.”
4. He filed the written statement and thereafter inquiry
was conducted and finding was given as follows:-
“From perusal of the record and under
the facts and circumstances as
discussed above it transpires that the
Article of charge against the proceedee
government servant Sri Arun Kumar-
II, mainly relates to that while
functioning as Special Judge, POCSO
Court at Katihar since 24.08.2021 till
Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 2025(5) dt.12-03-2026
6/12
date has remained absent from his
station and duty in an unauthorized
manner without permission and also
without any application for leave and
that too despite an opportunity with
direction to apply for leave, and has
also continued to retain charge of his
court and office since 19.05.22 till date
in an unauthorized manner in violation
of specific direction issued to him vide
order bearing memo no. 30314 dated
20.05.2022 to make over the charge
immediately on his suspension and in
turn over burdening the in-charge
judicial officer of his court during the
entire period of ten (10) months from
24.08.2021 till date which shows prima
facie gross misconduct, indiscipline,
wilful disobedience, dereliction of duty
and intention to abandon service, thus
unbecoming of and unfit to continue as
a judicial officer of Bihar Judicial
Services.”
5. The petitioner was asked to file second show-cause
and accordingly, he filed the same (Annexure-12). The final
order was passed and on the basis of the inquiry report dated
18.09.2023, penalty of stoppage of two increments with
cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. It is the further
case of the petitioner that he approached the Hon’ble Governor
Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 2025(5) dt.12-03-2026
7/12
under Section 20 of Bihar Judicial Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 2020 for review of the order and the
Governor of Bihar, after going through the writ petition as well
as comments of this Court and the material available on record,
has been pleased to hold that the petitioner was given proper
opportunity of being heard and he had participated in the
departmental proceedings and that this Court, being the
disciplinary authority, considering the entire material, passed the
order regarding stoppage of increments and, therefore, there was
no merit found in the review petition and, accordingly, the same
stood dismissed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
mainly contended that authorities were duly intimated about his
leave so also he sought for his extension of leave and, therefore,
the finding in the inquiry report is based on surmises and
conjectures. It is further argued that the petitioner was not in a
condition to travel from long distance due to his illness and in
view of the advice given by the doctors, he was taking rest, and
for which there might be lack of proper communication and,
therefore, his case should be sympathetically considered. The
petitioner has not challenged that there is any defect in the
conducting of the departmental proceeding or that the principles
Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 2025(5) dt.12-03-2026
8/12
of natural justice has not been followed. The sole ground is
taking leniency on the punishment, that has been imposed on
him.
7. It is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time,
the petitioner was holding an important post and he was
working as Special Judge, POCSO Act, Katihar.
8. Sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the POCSO Act
provides that the Special Court shall complete the trial as far as
possible within a period of one year from the date of taking
cognizance.
9. If the timeline is fixed for disposal of such cases
and the main officer i.e., Presiding Officer of the Court remains
absent for months together, then the purpose for which such
enactment has been made for expeditious disposal of the cases,
would be frustrated.
10. Even though, it is the case of the petitioner that
the authorities were duly intimated, but the Inquiry Officer
found that there were two communications from the side of the
petitioner. Moreover, he has been intimated twice vide Office
Memo No. 30314 dated 19.05.2022 as well as Office Memo No.
138/2022 dated 20.05.2022 to make over the same on his
suspension, which is also disputed by the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 2025(5) dt.12-03-2026
9/12
petitioner.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajendra D. Harmalkar (2022) 17
SCC 361 has made the following observation:-
“27. Even from the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court it does not
appear that any specific reasoning was given
by the High Court on how the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority could
be said to be shockingly disproportionate to
the misconduct proved. As per the settled
position of law, unless and until it is found
that the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority is shockingly
disproportionate and/or there is procedural
irregularity in conducting the inquiry, the
High Court would not be justified in
interfering with the order of the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority which
as such is a prerogative of the disciplinary
authority as observed hereinabove.
12. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Const Sunil
Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2023), relevant paragraph of
which is mentioned hereinbelow:-
“6.2…..it is observed and held by this
Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 2025(5) dt.12-03-2026
10/12
Court after considering the earlier decision in
the case of Union of India Vs. R.K.Sharma;
(2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of powers of
judicial review interfering with the punishment of
dismissal on the ground that it was
disproportionate, the punishment should not be
merely disproportionate but should be strikingly
disproportionate.”
13. Be that as it may, after going through the finding
of the inquiry report as well as the order passed by the Hon’ble
Governor of Bihar, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in
the same. Moreover, since the punishment that has been
imposed on the petitioner regarding stoppage of two increments
cannot be said to be strikingly disproportionate to the charges
leveled against the petitioner and proved in accordance with law
by holding the disciplinary proceeding.
14. This Court in its power of judicial review does not
act as an appellate authority, it does not reappreciate the
evidence adduced in departmental enquiry. Question of
adequacy of the evidence or reliable nature of evidence will not
be the grounds for interfering with the findings in the
departmental enquiry. In the case of United Bank of India Vs.
Biswanath Bhattacharya reported in (2022) 13 Supreme Court
Cases 329, it is held as follows:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 2025(5) dt.12-03-2026
11/12
“21. The Bank is correct, when it
contends that an appellate
review of the materials and
findings cannot ordinarily be
undertaken, in proceedings
under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Yet, from H.C.
Goel [Union of India v. H.C.
Goel, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 16 :
(1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC
364] onwards, this Court has
consistently ruled that where the
findings of the disciplinary
authority are not based on
evidence, or based on a
consideration of irrelevant
material, or ignoring relevant
material, are mala fide, or where
the findings are perverse or such
that they could not have been
rendered by any reasonable
person placed in like
circumstances, the remedies
under Article 226 of the
Constitution are available, and
intervention, warranted. For any
court to ascertain if any findings
were beyond the record (i.e. no
evidence) or based on any
irrelevant or extraneous factors,
or by ignoring material evidence,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 2025(5) dt.12-03-2026
12/12
necessarily some amount of
scrutiny is necessary. A finding
of “no evidence” or perversity,
cannot be rendered sans such
basic scrutiny of the materials,
and the findings of the
disciplinary authority. However,
the margin of appreciation of the
court under Article 226 of the
Constitution would be different;
it is not the appellate in
character.”
15. In view of the limited scope of interference in the
judicial review, we are not inclined to interfere with the same
and, accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
HR/-Gaurav
U
Checking your session…