Patna High Court
Md. UmranversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as frivolous because the departmental proceedings have already concluded with the petitioner’s restoration, making the requested transfer unnecessary.
Summary
The petitioner, a police officer, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the transfer of departmental proceeding No. 32/21 from the Munger Range to another range, alleging that the enquiry officer conducted the inquiry arbitrarily and violated natural justice, and also complained of undue delay causing mental agony. The State contended that the petition contradicted its own representation, which indicated that the petitioner’s service had been restored and the enquiry officer’s role had already ended. The Court examined the representation and noted that the departmental proceedings had concluded with the petitioner’s restoration, rendering the request for transfer moot. Consequently, the Court held the petition frivolous and dismissed it. The petition was therefore dismissed with no relief granted.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the transfer of the departmental proceeding to another range
- Whether the conduct of the enquiry officer violated principles of natural justice and the Police Manual
- Whether the delay in the departmental proceedings justifies relief for mental agony
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 101, 102
Subjects
- departmental inquiry
- mandamus
- natural justice
- service termination
- service restoration
- writ petition
- police service
- delay
- mental agony
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8770 of 2024
======================================================
Md. Umran Son of Md. Majid Hussain Resident of Ward No.-9, Village-Sirsi,
P.S.- Khudabandpur, District-Begusarai at present posted at the District
Police, District-Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Sardar Patel Bhawan,
Bailey Road, Patna.
4. the Deputy Inspector of Police, Munger Range, Munger.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Munger.
6. The Additional Superintendent of Police (HQ), Munger District Munger.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dr. Bipin Chandra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel 9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 05-02-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Learned Counsel for the State.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
I. R4 For issuance of a writ of mandamus to the
concerned respondents as to transfer the Departmental
proceedings No. 32/21 from the Munger Range to the other
range by removing the present disciplinary authority i.e. the
Enquiry officer and the presenting officer from the present
proceedings on the grounds that the Enquiry Officer has
been taking the proceedings i.e. examinations of the
witnesses in most arbitrary and illegal manners without
Patna High Court CWJC No.8770 of 2024(2) dt.05-02-2026
2/3
recording the vital objections raised by the petitioner. The
conduct of the Enquiry Officer is in complete derogation of
the procedure established by law (Police Manual) and in
violation of the principles of natural Justice.
II. Further be pleased to direct the concerned
respondent No. 3 dispose of the to application dated
23.02.2024/28.2.2024 of petitioner forthwith so that the
petitioner may approach the appropriate forum of law as
the department proceedings was initiated on 22.10.2021
meaning thereby it took 3 years (approx.) making the
petitioner terrorised harassed and victim of mental agony.
3. Counsel for the State submits that the pleading of
the petitioner is in complete contradiction with its representation
which is Annexure-(P/2) whose paragraph No.VI (page 26)
states as follows:-
“(vi) जाँच पदाधधकारी दारा Indian Evidence Act-
1872 section-101 and 102 का उललं घन धकया गया है कयोधक
Burden of proof का भार आरोप लगाने वाले के उपर होता है न
धक अपचारी पर। अधभयोजन पक मे रे धवरद धकसी भी izdkj का
साकय सं चालन के दौरान नहीं दे पाये है । यह दरू भागय है धक
सं चालन पदाधधकारी आरोप लगाने वाले का पक ले धलये है और
मु झे लगाये गये आरोप के धलये दोषी कर धदये ।
lk{;ksa की अनदे खी करते हुये दरू भावना से izsfjr
होकर Jh सं जय कुमार, भा०पु ० से ०, पु धलस उप-महाधनरीकक
महोदय, मुं गेर {ks=, मुं गेर दारा अपने कायारलय जापांक-1412/गो0,
धद0-13.12.2022 तद्नुसार मुं गेर धजलादे श सं 0-2117/2022,
तद्नुसार जापांक-4788/र 0 का0, धद0-18.12.2022 को से वा से
बखारसत धकया गया था।
मे रे अपील अभयावे दन पर भवदीय के कायारलय का
आदे श i= सं 0-02/2023/85/अपील कोषां ग, धद0-15.5.2023 के
दारा मुं गेर धजला धवभागीय कायरवाही सं 0-32/21 मे पु धलस उप-
महाधनरीकक महोदय, मुं गेर {ks=, मुं गेर दारा जापांक-1412/गो0,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8770 of 2024(2) dt.05-02-2026
3/3
धद0-13.12.23 के माधयम से पाधरत आदे श, जाँच पदाधधकारी के
मं तवय, आरोप- izk:i को धनरसत कर धदया गया एवं धनलं धबत रखने
के सं बंध मे धनररय ले ने हे तु पु धलस उप-महाधनरीकक महोदय, मुं गेर
{ks=, मुं गेर को धदया गया।
उकत आदे श के आलोक मे मुं गेर {ks=kns”k सं 0-
152/2023 तद्नुसार मुं गेर धजलादे श सं 0-940/2023 तद्नुसार
जापांक-2500/र 0 का0, धद0-14.06.2023 मु झे से वा मे ले ने का
आदे श धदया गया।
उकत आदे श के आलोक मे मधे पुरा धजलादे श सं 0-
664/23, तद्नुसार जापांक-1027/20 का0, धद0-23.06.23 के
माधयम से से वा मे धलया गया एवं योगदान की धतधथ-22.6.23 से
जीवन यापन भता मे रे अनु रोध आवे दन पर धदया गया। "
4. It transpires to this Court that in the departmental
proceeding, the petitioner was terminated from his service and
in the appeal, decision was taken to restore his service. If it is so
in the representation, then there is no question of transfer the
departmental proceeding as the role of the Enquiry Officer and
Presenting Officer has already been ended. As such, the present
writ petition is frivolous one, hence, dismissed.
5. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the
present writ application stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
U
Checking your session…