Patna High Court
Most. Indu DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The second show‑cause notice issued under Rule 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005 is valid, the disciplinary proceedings complied with natural‑justice requirements, and the dismissal is not disproportionate.
Summary
The petitioner, Indu Devi, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the dismissal of her husband, a Revenue Karmchari, alleging that the second show‑cause notice was issued by an unauthorized officer and that the disciplinary proceedings violated natural‑justice principles. The husband had been charged with opening a Jamabandi without proper authority, faced departmental enquiry, suspension, reinstatement, and a fresh enquiry leading to dismissal. The petitioner contended that the second show‑cause notice under Rule 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005 was invalid and that the enquiry was perverse, seeking financial benefits and reinstatement. The State argued that the notice was issued under the Collector’s direction, complying with Rule 18(3), and that the punishment was proportionate. The Court examined the competence to issue the notice, the compliance with natural‑justice norms, and the proportionality of dismissal, concluding that the notice was valid, the enquiry was fair, and the dismissal was not excessive, thereby dismissing the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the second show‑cause notice issued by the Deputy Collector under Rule 18(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 was issued by a competent disciplinary authority.
- Whether the principles of natural justice were complied with during the departmental enquiry.
- Whether the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate or shockingly excessive.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 — s. Rule 17(4), Rule 18(3)
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- departmental enquiry
- disciplinary proceedings
- natural justice
- procedural irregularity
- dismissal from service
- show‑cause notice
- Bihar Government Servants Rules
- Article 226
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.907 of 2025
======================================================
Most. Indu Devi Wife of Late Surendra Prasad Yadav @ Surendra Yadav,
Resident of Village and P.O. Gokhula, Police Station- Shikarpur, District-
West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, West Champaran, Bettia.
4. The Addl. Collector, West Chamapran, Bettia.
5. The Deputy Collector Establishment, West Champaran, Bettia.
6. The Circle Officer, Bhitaha Block, West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (19)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 08-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the following
relief/s :-
“1(a) …. for issuance of an
appropriate writ by preferably in the nature
of writ of ertiorari to quash the order dated
08.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner,
Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Service
Appeal Case No. 96 of 2024 whereby the
Patna High Court CWJC No.907 of 2025 dt. 08-07-2026
2/13
appeal has been rejected.
(b) Further a writ of mandamus
may be issued to provide all the financial
benefit to the petitioner during his period of
suspension.
(c) Further a writ of mandamus
may be issued to provide all the financial
benefit to the petitioner during his period of
suspension.
(d) Further an order may be
passed to provide all retiral benefits to the
petitioner.
(e) Further any other benefit as his
lordships may be deem fit in the backdrop of
this case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's husband was appointed as a Revenue Karmchari in
the year 1988 under the Collector, Bettiah, following the due
process of selection. It is submitted that, subsequently, vide
Memo No. 163 dated 17.01.2017 (Annexure P/2 to the writ
petition), the petitioner's husband was informed regarding the
initiation of a departmental proceeding by service of charges
contained in Prapatra-Ka. The Additional Collector, West
Champaran, Bettiah, was appointed as the Conducting Officer,
while the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Bagaha,
was appointed as the Presenting Officer.
Patna High Court CWJC No.907 of 2025 dt. 08-07-2026
3/13
4. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation
in the charge memo was that the petitioner's husband had
recommended opening of an old Jamabandi in respect of Thana
No. 276, Khata No. 7, Khesra Nos. 615, 621, 622, admeasuring
a total area of 107 bighas, without obtaining the approval of the
competent authority and without verifying the Bettiah Raj
settlement (Patta) and the rent receipts issued by Bettiah Raj.
Learned counsel further submits that, in compliance with the
order of the Collector, the Conducting Officer issued a show-
cause notice along with the charges contained in Prapatra-Ka to
the petitioner's husband. In response thereto, he submitted his
reply dated 28.01.2017, denying the charges and raising various
objections. It is further submitted that, after conducting the
enquiry, the Conducting Officer submitted his enquiry report to
the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner's husband
guilty of the charges. Thereafter, a second show-cause notice
was issued vide Memo No. 557 dated 06.12.2017. Subsequently,
the petitioner's husband preferred Service Appeal No. 91 of
2019 before the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division,
which came to be dismissed by order dated 20.09.2019.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner's husband challenged both the
order of punishment as well as the appellate order before this
Patna High Court CWJC No.907 of 2025 dt. 08-07-2026
4/13
Court in CWJC No. 808 of 2020. The said writ petition was
allowed vide judgment dated 25.04.2020, whereby the order of
punishment contained in Memo No. 150 dated 05.03.2019 and
the appellate order dated 20.09.2019 passed in Service Appeal
No. 91 of 2019 were quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that while setting aside the aforesaid orders, this Court directed
the Disciplinary Authority to take a fresh decision regarding
continuation of suspension or reinstatement of the petitioner's
husband within a period of two months from the date of
receipt/production of the order. This Court further directed that
the intervening period from the date of dismissal till the passing
of a fresh order should also be considered and regulated in
accordance with law after completion of the enquiry
proceedings. It was further observed that there had been non-
compliance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 17 of the Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCA Rules, 2005),
and, accordingly, the disciplinary authority was directed to
recommence the enquiry from the defective stage and conclude
the proceedings within six months.
6. Learned counsel further submits that, in compliance
Patna High Court CWJC No.907 of 2025 dt. 08-07-2026
5/13
with the aforesaid judgment dated 25.04.2020 passed in CWJC
No. 808 of 2020, the Disciplinary Authority issued Memo No.
623 dated 02.08.2022, whereby the petitioner's husband was
reinstated in service and posted in the Circle Office, Bagaha-II
(Annexure P/5). It is further submitted that, thereafter, vide
Memo No. 658 dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure P/6), the
petitioner's husband was again placed under suspension. His
headquarters was fixed at the Circle Office, Mainatand, and the
Additional Collector, West Champaran, was again nominated as
the Conducting Officer, while the DCLR, Bagaha, was
appointed as the Presenting Officer for conducting the
departmental enquiry afresh from the stage identified as
defective by this Court.
7. Learned counsel further submits that a second
show-cause notice, along with a copy of the enquiry report, was
thereafter issued vide Memo No. 1471 dated 23.11.2022
(Annexure P/7). It is contended that the said second show-cause
notice was issued by the Deputy Collector (Establishment),
West Champaran, Bettiah, which is in gross violation of Rule
18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005. According to learned counsel,
only the Disciplinary Authority, namely the Collector of the
district, was competent to issue the second show-cause notice.
Patna High Court CWJC No.907 of 2025 dt. 08-07-2026
6/13
Consequently, it is submitted that all consequential actions taken
on the basis of such an invalid second show-cause notice are
unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserve to be quashed.
8. Learned counsel further submits that, after receipt
of the aforesaid second show-cause notice, the petitioner's
husband submitted his reply. Thereafter, the Disciplinary
Authority passed the final order contained in Memo No. 2 dated
02.01.2023, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.
It is submitted that the said order of dismissal was challenged
before this Court in CWJC No. 8140 of 2023. However, the writ
petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner's
husband to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the
Appellate Authority. Pursuant thereto, he preferred Service
Appeal No. 96 of 2024, which was dismissed vide order dated
08.08.2024 (Annexure P/11).
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the
Disciplinary Authority, as well as the Appellate Authority are
not based upon any legal evidence or material available on
record and are, therefore, wholly perverse and unsustainable in
law.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.907 of 2025 dt. 08-07-2026
7/13
other hand, submits that the issue regarding procedural
irregularity had already been considered by this Court in the
earlier round of litigation, whereafter liberty was granted to the
authorities to proceed with the departmental enquiry from the
defective stage. It is further submitted that the Conducting
Officer-cum-Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah,
forwarded the enquiry report to the Deputy Collector
(Establishment), West Champaran, Bettiah, vide Letter No. 3768
dated 26.10.2022 for taking necessary action. Thereafter, in
terms of Rule 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005, Memo No. 1471
dated 23.11.2022 was issued enclosing the enquiry report and all
relevant documents, thereby calling upon the petitioner's
husband to submit his representation against the enquiry report.
11. Learned counsel for the State further submits that
the decision to issue the second show-cause notice was taken by
the Disciplinary Authority, namely the Collector, and the Deputy
Collector (Establishment) merely communicated the same under
the instructions of the Collector. According to him, this position
is evident from the contents of the communication itself. He
further submits that the petitioner's husband submitted his reply
to the second show-cause notice, which was found to be
unsatisfactory. It is contended that, in his reply, the petitioner's
Patna High Court CWJC No.907 of 2025 dt. 08-07-2026
8/13
husband admitted certain factual aspects. He stated that the
Enquiry Officer had obtained his signatures on the order-sheet
of Case No. 03/2013-14 under pressure. He also alleged that the
Circle Officer compelled him to sign the enquiry proceedings.
At the same time, he admitted that the Circle Officer, Bhitaha,
had forwarded the settlement Patta and rent receipts to the
office of Bettiah Raj for verification. He further admitted that he
was unaware as to who had created the Jamabandi in Register-II
and asserted that he had never signed Register-II.
12. Learned counsel for the State further submits that,
after considering the enquiry report and the defence submitted
by the petitioner's husband, the Disciplinary Authority recorded
a finding that the charges stood proved and, accordingly,
imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The statutory
Service Appeal No. 96 of 2024 preferred against the said order
was also dismissed after due consideration. It is further the stand
of the State that the petitioner's husband was paid subsistence
allowance during the entire period of suspension. The details of
the subsistence allowance paid to him are as follows:
SL Mode of Bill No. and date Amount remarks
No. payment paid
1 GPF 10.06.2023 896936/- Surendra Prasad
Yadav (A/C)
NO.11874577946
2 August, 2022 BRF No. 36878/- Surendra Prasad
subsistence 1674970995422 Yadav (A/C)
Patna High Court CWJC No.907 of 2025 dt. 08-07-2026
9/13
allowance NO.11874577946
SBI
3 October, 2022 BRF No. 40434/- Surendra Prasad
Subsistence 1678121373800 Yadav (A/C)
Allowance NO.11874577946
SBI
4 October, 2022 BRF No. 40434/- Surendra Prasad
Subsistence 1678121469915 Yadav (A/C)
Allowance NO.11874577946
SBI
5 November, 2022 BRF No. 40434/- Surendra Prasad
Subsistence 1676121022321 Yadav (A/C)
Allowance NO.11874577946
SBI
6 December, 2022 BRF No. 40434/- Surendra Prasad
Subsistence 1678121720135 Yadav (A/C)
Allowance NO.11874577946
SBI
7 January, 2023 38/25-26 5218/- Indu Devi A/C No.
Subsistence 20.1.2026 43502497717
Allowance S.B.I.
8 Group Insurance 133/25-26 114998/- Indu Devi A/C No.
29.03.2025 43502497717
S.B.I.
13. Learned counsel for the State concludes his
submissions by contending that the scope of judicial review in
disciplinary matters is limited to examining whether the
principles of natural justice have been complied with and
whether the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate.
He submits that, in the present case, the earlier order of
punishment was set aside by this Court solely on account of
procedural irregularity, with a direction to recommence the
departmental proceeding from the defective stage. Thereafter,
the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with law and
Patna High Court CWJC No.907 of 2025 dt. 08-07-2026
10/13
no procedural irregularity was committed. Adequate and
reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner's husband
at every stage of the proceeding and, therefore, no violation of
the principles of natural justice can be said to have occurred. It
is further submitted that the misconduct committed by the
petitioner's husband facilitated the illegal transfer of
approximately 107 bighas of Bettiah Raj land in favour of
raiyats. Considering the gravity of the misconduct, the
punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be
excessive or disproportionate; rather, it is commensurate with
the nature and seriousness of the charges proved against him.
14. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the materials available on record, this Court
finds that the principal contention advanced on behalf of the
petitioner is that the second show-cause notice issued under
Rule 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005, is without jurisdiction, as it
was not issued by the competent disciplinary authority. In order
to examine the aforesaid contention, it would be apposite to
reproduce the provisions of Rule 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005,
which read as follows:-
“(3)The disciplinary authority
shall forward or cause to be forwarded a
copy of the inquiry report, together with its
own findings, if any, as provided in sub-
Patna High Court CWJC No.907 of 2025 dt. 08-07-2026
11/13
rule (2), to the government servant who
may submit, if he or she so desires, his or
her written representation or submission to
the disciplinary authority within fifteen
days.”
15. Upon a bare reading of the second show-cause
notice, it transpires that the decision to issue the same was taken
by the Collector, and pursuant to the Collector's directions, the
Deputy Collector (Establishment) issued the second show-cause
notice. This Court finds that the second show-cause notice has
been issued under Rule 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005. In the
opinion of this Court, there is no defect or illegality in the
exercise of power under Rule 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005.
Accordingly, the said contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner is devoid of merit and is rejected.
16. So far as the petitioner's contention that no witness
was examined during the departmental enquiry is concerned,
this Court, upon perusal of the charge memo, the enquiry report
and the second show-cause notice, finds that the petitioner’s
husband himself has substantially admitted the allegations. His
only explanation is that his signatures on the relevant documents
were obtained by the Circle Officer under coercion. It is an
admitted position that the petitioner’s husband has been serving
as a Revenue Karamchari since 1988 and was the custodian of
Patna High Court CWJC No.907 of 2025 dt. 08-07-2026
12/13
the relevant records maintained in the Circle Office. If the
petitioner's husband own case is that his signatures were
obtained under pressure from the Circle Officer, it necessarily
implies that he had signed the documents in question, though
according to him under coercion. Such a defence, by itself, does
not absolve him of his responsibility, particularly when no
contemporaneous complaint or material has been brought on
record to substantiate the allegation of coercion.
17. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view
that the delinquent's explanation in the second show-cause
notice, namely that he signed the documents and participated in
the enquiry under pressure from the Circle Officer, does not help
him. The findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are
based on the materials available on record and do not suffer
from any perversity or illegality. This Court further finds that
the principles of natural justice have been duly complied with,
adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner’s
husband throughout the disciplinary proceeding, and no
procedural irregularity has been established.
18. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the punishment imposed cannot be
said to be so disproportionate or shockingly excessive as to
Patna High Court CWJC No.907 of 2025 dt. 08-07-2026
13/13
warrant interference in exercise of the power of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
19. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ
petition, the same stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 30.06.2026
Uploading Date 09/07/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.