Bishwajeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8916 of 2022
     ======================================================
     Bishwajeet Kumar Son of Shailendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-
     Bhalar, Dharahra, District-Munger, (Dismissed constable of Nalanda District).

                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus

1.   The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary cum Home
     Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna.
2.   The Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Patel Bhawan,
     Bailey Road, Patna.
3.   The Inspector General of Police, Patna Zone, Patna, Bihar.
4.   The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda.
5.   The Inspector of Police, Sri Prakash Kumar Sharan, the than Bihar Police
     Station (Campt), Nalanda Bihar Police Station.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr.Arun Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :      Mr.Manish Kumar (GP4)
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                         ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 30-01-2026
                Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

      counsel for the State.

                  2. The present writ petition has been filed with the

      following relief/s :-

                                  “….. directing the concerned respondents to
                      forbear from giving any effect to the order dated
                      3022/Ra.ka. Dated 31.05.2020 vide Nalanda District
                      Order (D.O.) No.1077 of 2020 in Departmental
                      Proceeding No. 25 of 2020 which has been affirmed by the
                      order dated 30.06.2020 vide Memo No. 230 Bi.Ka. by the
                      Inspector General of Police, Patna, against the order of
                      awarding punishment in the Appeal filed by the Petitioner,
                      communicated by the S.P. Nalanda, D.O. No. 1348 of
                      2020, then the petitioner filed memorial application before
                      the Director General of Police which has been also
                      rejected and affirmed by the order passed by the above
Patna High Court CWJC No.8916 of 2022 dt.30-01-2026
                                           2/5




                          both authority vide D.G.P. Office Memo No. P-3/13-07-06-
                          2020/273 dated 10.08.2021. The above orders have been
                          passed in the most illegal, void and arbitrary manner and
                          the said orders are also contrary to Rule 824 read with
                          Appendix 49 Page 214 of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978.”



                     3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

         impugned order is contained in Annexure-7, namely, the letter

         dated 31.05.2020 issued vide Memo No. 3022 by the

         Superintendent of Police, Nalanda. Learned counsel further

         submits that the said order is essentially one wherein the second

         show-cause reply has not been considered at all, except for a

         cryptic one-line observation stating that the reply was “not

         found satisfactory.” He submits that in judicial or quasi-judicial

         proceedings, the submissions of both sides are required to be

         duly considered, and a mere one-line statement that the reply is

         unsatisfactory amounts to a gross violation of the settled

         principles of law.

                     4. Learned counsel further submits that in the order-

         sheet, particularly in the first and fifteenth lines, interpolations

         have apparently been made by using whitener and inserting

         other words, without any initials or authentication. He further

         submits that the enquiry report itself has not been prepared in

         accordance with law. It is also submitted that the petitioner had

         filed a detailed second show-cause reply in defence, which has
Patna High Court CWJC No.8916 of 2022 dt.30-01-2026
                                           3/5




         not been considered at all. Therefore, he submits that the order

         passed by the Disciplinary Authority is in complete violation of

         the settled principles of service jurisprudence. He further

         submits that the Appellate Authority has also failed to consider

         these aspects of the matter and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal

         vide order dated 07.07.2020 issued vide Memo No. 3838, as

         contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition.

                     5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,

         submits that the charge memo was duly issued, a written

         statement was called for, the petitioner participated in the

         departmental enquiry, and the Enquiry Officer found the charges

         proved against the petitioner. He submits that upon acceptance

         of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the

         impugned order. He further submits that in the final order, the

         Disciplinary Authority was not required to assign detailed

         reasons, as the order was passed on the basis of the findings

         recorded in the enquiry report.

                     6. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that

         certain changes have been made in 1st and 15th line of the final

         order and that such changes were not initialed. However, he

         submits that these changes were carried out in accordance with

         the enquiry report and are merely corrections as per the record.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8916 of 2022 dt.30-01-2026
                                           4/5




         He submits that the omission to put initials on such corrections

         cannot be treated as illegal. He further fairly submits that the

         second show-cause reply was dealt with by a one-line

         observation stating that it was not found satisfactory. He further

         submits that the matter was duly considered by the Appellate

         Authority, which dismissed the appeal vide order dated

         07.07.2020 issued vide Memo No. 3838 (Annexure-10 to the

         writ petition). In view of the aforesaid submissions, he contends

         that the impugned orders are sustainable in the eyes of law and

         that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

                     7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, upon

         perusal of the record, this Court finds that under Rule 18 of the

         Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal)

         Rules, 2005, the Disciplinary Authority is required to take a

         decision after due consideration of the representation or

         submissions made by the delinquent employee in response to

         the second show-cause notice. However, in the present case, the

         second show-cause reply has not been considered at all, and

         only one-line statement has been recorded to the effect that the

         reply was “not found satisfactory.” Such an observation cannot

         be construed as due consideration of the petitioner’s

         representation/ reply of 2nd show cause notice.
             Patna High Court CWJC No.8916 of 2022 dt.30-01-2026
                                                        5/5




                                  8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court hereby

                      sets aside the disciplinary order dated 31.05.2020 issued by the

                      Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, vide Nalanda Jiladesh No.

                      1077/2020, which was communicated through Memo No. 3022

                      (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), as well as the appellate order

                      dated 07.07.2020 issued vide Memo No. 3838 (Annexure-10 to

                      the writ petition). The matter is remanded back to the

                      Disciplinary Authority, who shall pass a fresh order in

                      accordance with law, considering points mentioned in reply to

                      2nd show-cause notice, within a period of 90 days from the date

                      of production of a copy of this order.

                                  9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the

                      writ petition stands allowed.


                                                  (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          30/01/2026
Transmission Date       NA