Patna High Court
Birendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court set aside the impugned resolutions and remitted the case to the disciplinary authority for a fresh decision, noting the procedural defect in the charge sheet and the need for parity in punishment.
Summary
Birendra Kumar, a probationer deputy collector, was expelled from a departmental examination for alleged cheating and subsequently subjected to departmental proceedings that resulted in a charge sheet (Prapatra Ka) that was not signed by the competent disciplinary authority, violating Section 17(3) and (4) of the Bihar CCA Rules. Despite the Bihar Public Service Commission refusing consent to the proposed punishment as disproportionate, the authority imposed a major penalty of withholding three pay increments and a three‑year promotion freeze. The petitioner challenged the resolutions on grounds of procedural defect, limitation, and discriminatory treatment compared with similarly situated officers. The Patna High Court held that the unsigned charge sheet rendered the impugned resolutions infirm and, notwithstanding earlier case law suggesting final approval might cure the defect, set aside the orders and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to decide afresh, ensuring parity with other cases. The writ petition was disposed with directions for a fresh decision within six weeks.
Issues considered
- The charge sheet issued without the signature of the disciplinary authority is non est and invalidates the punishment.
- Whether the limitation ground for dismissing the review is applicable.
- Whether the petitioner was subjected to discriminatory punishment vis‑à‑vis similarly situated officers.
- Whether the court can set aside the impugned resolutions and remand the matter.
Subjects
- departmental enquiry
- charge sheet
- procedural defect
- discriminatory punishment
- equal treatment
- Bihar CCA Rules
- penalty
- limitation
- certiorari
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 923 of 2023
======================================================
Birendra Kumar Son of Late Ram Lakhan Sah Resident - Near Shiv Hanuman
Mandir, New Area Shikandarpur, Akharaghat Road P.S.- Muzaffarpur Town,
District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Joint Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
7. The Under Secretary Board of Revenue, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
8. The Departmental Enquiry Commissioner, Bihar, Patna-cum-Enquiry
Officer.
9. The Presenting Officer, Board of Revenue, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
10. The Deputy Secretary-cum-Centre Superintendent, Central Examination
Committee (Board of Revenue), Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Lalit Kishore, Sr Advocate with
Mr Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC VIII with
Mr Sanjay Kumar, AC to SC VIII
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2 The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs :
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
2/20
“(i) For issuance of writ/writs,
order/orders or direction/directions in the nature
of certiorari for setting aside Resolution as
contained in Memo No 6187 dated 22.04.2022
issued under the signature of Under Secretary to
the Government, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar whereby and
where under an application filed by the
petitioner to reconsider order of punishment
awarded to the petitioner vide Resolution as
contained in Memo No 12113 dated 10.09.2018
has been rejected merely on the ground of
limitation without considering merit of the
application.
(ii) For issuance of writ/writs,
order/orders or direction/directions in the nature
of certiorari for setting aside Resolution as
contained in Memo No 12113 dated 10.09.2018
issued under the signature of Under Secretary to
Government, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar whereby and
where under the petitioner has been awarded
major penalties of withholding three pay
increments with cumulative effect and further
stoppage of promotion for three years from the
due date under Section 14 of the Bihar CCA
Rules 2005.
(iii) For any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioner may be found entitled to in
the eye of law and in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted in
favour of the petitioner.”
3 At the outset, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner, while posted as Probationer
Deputy Collector, Munger, the Central Examination Committee
(Board of Revenue), Bihar conducted second half yearly
departmental examination 2011 for gazetted officers from
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
3/20
01.02.2012 to 04.02.2012 in which the petitioner appeared on
02.02.2012 in the first sitting at the designated center at Patna.
The petitioner and three other persons were found indulged in
cheating, therefore, were expelled from the examination on the
ground of misconduct vide office order No 03 (Camp) dated
02.02.2012 issued under the signature of the Center
Superintendent, Rajkiya Kanya Uchcha Vidyalaya, Shastri Nagar,
Patna. A show cause notice contained in Memo No 3647 dated
06.03.2012 was issued under the signature of the Officer on
Special Duty -cum- Deputy Secretary to the Government, General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna by which
the petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the show cause
within one week. Along with the show cause notice, letter No 06
(Camp) dated 03.02.2012, letter No 21 dated 03.02.2012 and letter
No 173 dated 21.12.2012 were also enclosed.
4 It has further been submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that along with letter dated 21.02.2012,
a copy of Prapatra Ka was also served. It has been submitted that
from perusal of Prapatra Ka, it would transpire that the same was
not signed by the Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Bihar, Patna who is the Disciplinary Authority of the
petitioner and, as such, Prapatra Ka itself is said to be defective.
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
4/20
The charge against the petitioner was that he was found involved
in cheating with the help of book/guide in the examination which
comes under the category of misconduct and as such, on the report
of the invigilator, the petitioner was expelled from the examination
for other papers also. Accordingly, the petitioner filed his reply on
26.03.2012, denying the charge, but without proper consideration
of the show cause reply dated 26.03.2012 filed by the petitioner, a
Resolution contained in Memo No 18516 dated 09.11.2012 was
issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary to the
Government, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna by which decision was taken to initiate departmental
proceeding against the petitioner and the Departmental Enquiry
Commissioner, Bihar, Patna was appointed as the Enquiry Officer
and the officer nominated by the Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna
was appointed as Presenting Officer. Along with the Resolution
dated 09.11.2012, copy of the opinion of the Board of Revenue
dated 14.06.2012 on the show cause reply submitted by the
petitioner was also annexed. Pursuant thereto, departmental
enquiry was initiated by the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner
-cum- Enquiry Officer and vide order dated 23.11.2012, the
Enquiry Officer found certain errors/irregularities which have been
mentioned in paragraph No 5 of the proceeding of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
5/20
Departmental Proceeding No 43 of 2012. The Departmental
Enquiry Commissioner observed that the enquiry letter is not
annexed and the charge sheet (Prapatra Ka) does not bear the
signature of the Disciplinary Authority and the next date was fixed
on 13.12.2012. The said defect, pointed out by the Enquiry
Officer, was never rectified by the Department as neither enquiry
letter nor charge sheet (Prapatra Ka), duly signed by the
Disciplinary Authority, was ever submitted before the Enquiry
Officer and as such, the entire enquiry proceeded on defective
Prapatra Ka, therefore, the entire proceeding vitiates. After
conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner was directed to submit his
written argument before the Additional Departmental Enquiry
Commissioner -cum- Principal Secretary, Environment and Forest
Department, Bihar, Patna and in compliance thereof, a detailed
written argument was submitted by the petitioner whereby he
denied all the charges levelled against him and requested to
exonerate him from the said charges.
5 It has further been submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer submitted his
enquiry report on 03.11.2017 to the General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna vide letter No 148 dated
06.11.2017, wherein the Enquiry Officer found the charges against
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
6/20
the petitioner proved, which clearly suggests that the Enquiry
Officer, without considering the written submissions filed on
behalf of the petitioner, has come to the conclusion that the
charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The enquiry
report dated 03.11.2017 was sent to the petitioner along with letter
No 14799 dated 22.11.2017 issued under the signature of Under
Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna by which the petitioner was directed
to submit his written submission within a period of 15 days and in
compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted his written
submission on 07.12.2017. After submission of the written
argument on behalf of the petitioner, a Resolution contained in
Memo No 12113 dated 10.09.2018 was issued under the signature
of Under Secretary to the Government, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna by which punishment
was awarded to the petitioner under Section 14 of the Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
2005 (for brevity, Bihar CCA Rules) of withholding of three
increments of pay with cumulative effect and withholding of
Promotion for three years from the due date.
6 It has further been submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that from perusal of the punishment
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
7/20
order dated 10.09.2018, it would transpire that the Department
vide letter No 3853 dated 20.03.2018 sought consent from the
Bihar Public Service Commission (for brevity, BPSC) but the
BPSC, vide letter No 1273 dated 03.08.2018, did not give its
consent on the ground that the proposed punishment was
disproportionate. Even then, ignoring the advice of the BPSC, the
Disciplinary Authority proceeded to award punishment to the
petitioner without applying his mind. It has further been submitted
that for the same and similar set of charges, one Shri Ehsan
Ahmad, who was also found indulged in cheating in the same
examination, was also proceeded with departmentally, but has
been awarded lesser punishment than the petitioner, although in
case of said Ehsan Ahmad, the BPSC has given its consent for
grant of punishment, but even then he has been awarded the
punishment of Censure (for the year, 2011 -2012) and withholding
of two increments with cumulative effect.
7 It has further been submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that for the same set of charges,
discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioner,
since he has been given harsher punishment than Shri Ehsan
Ahmad. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that some other persons, namely Amarendra Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
8/20
Pandey and Sheo Shankar Paswan were also found indulged in
misconduct during the said examination, but have been given
lesser punishment. The petitioner filed review before the
competent authority against the order of punishment, but the same
was dismissed vide Memo No 6187 dated 22.04.2022 on the
ground of limitation.
8 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appeal No 7761 of 2013 (Union of India & Ors
-Versus- B V Gopinath) and its analogous cases wherein, in
paragraphs No 40, 45, 46 and 49, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has observed as under:
“40 Disciplinary proceedings against
the respondent herein were initiated in terms of
Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 14 (3)
clearly lays down that where it is proposed to
hold an inquiry against a government servant
under Rule 14 or Rule 15, the disciplinary
authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up
the charge sheet. Rule 14 (4) again mandates
that the disciplinary authority shall deliver or
cause to be delivered to the government servant,
a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of
the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour
and the supporting documents including a list of
witnesses by which each article of charge is
proposed to be proved. We are unable to
interpret this provision as suggested by the
Additional Solicitor General, that once the
disciplinary authority approves the initiation of
the disciplinary proceedings, the charge sheet
can be drawn up by an authority other than the
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
9/20
disciplinary authority. This would destroy the
underlying protection guaranteed under Article
311 (1) of the Constitution of India. Such
procedure would also do violence to the
protective provisions contained under Article 311
(2) which ensures that no public servant is
dismissed, removed or suspended without
following a fair procedure in which he/she has
been given a reasonable opportunity to meet the
allegations contained in the charge sheet. Such
a charge sheet can only be issued upon approval
by the appointing authority i e Finance Minister.
45 Much was sought to be made by Ms
Indira Jaising on clause (10) of the order which
provides that once the Finance Minister has
approved the initiation of departmental
proceedings, the ancillary action can be initiated
by the CVO. According to the learned Addl
Solicitor General, the decision taken by the
Finance Minister would also include the
decision for approval of charge memo. She
pointed out the procedure followed for initiation
of penalty proceedings/disciplinary proceedings.
She submitted that the decision to initiate
disciplinary proceedings is based on a
Satisfaction Memo prepared by the CVO. This
satisfaction memo is submitted to the Member
(P&V), Central Board of Direct Taxes, New
Delhi who after being satisfied that the memo is
in order, forwards it to the Chairman, CBDT
who in turn, upon his own satisfaction forwards
it to Secretary (Revenue) and finally to the
Finance Minister. Based on the satisfaction
memo, the Finance Minister, who is the
disciplinary authority in this case, takes the
decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
While taking the said decision, the Finance
Minister has before him, the details of the
alleged misconduct with the relevant materials
regarding the imputation of allegations based on
which the charge memo was issued. Therefore,
approval by the Finance Minister for initiation
of the departmental proceedings would also
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
10/20
cover the approval of the charge memo. We are
unable to accept the submission of the learned
Addl Solicitor General. Initially, when the file
comes to the Finance Minster, it is only to take a
decision in principle as to whether departmental
proceedings ought to be initiated against the
officer. Clause (11) deals with reference to CVC
for second stage advice. In case of proposal for
major penalties, the decision is to be taken by
the Finance Minister. Similarly, under Clause
(12) reconsideration of CVC’s second stage
advice is to be taken by the Finance Minister.
All further proceedings including approval for
referring the case to DOP & T, issuance of show
cause notice in case of disagreement with the
enquiry officer report; tentative decision after
CVC’s second stage advice on imposition of
penalty; final decision of penalty and
revision/review/memorial have to be taken by the
Finance Minister. In our opinion, the Central
Administrative Tribunal as well as the High
Court has correctly interpreted the provisions of
the Office Order No 205 of 2005. Factually
also, a perusal of the record would show that the
file was put up to the Finance Minister by the
Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance)
seeking the approval of the Finance Minister for
sanctioning prosecution against one officer and
for initiation of major penalty proceeding under
Rule 3 (1) (i) and (3) (1) (iii) of the Central Civil
Services (Conduct Rules against the officers
mentioned in the note which included the
appellant herein. Ultimately, it appears that the
charge memo was not put up for approval by the
Finance Minister. Therefore, it would not be
possible to accept the submission of Ms Indira
Jaising that the approval granted by the Finance
Minister for initiation of departmental
proceedings would also amount to approval of
the charge memo.
46 Ms Indira Jaising also submitted
that the purpose behind Article 311, Rule 14 and
also the Office Order of 2005 is to ensure that
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
11/20
only an authority that is not subordinate to the
appointing authority takes disciplinary action
and that rules of natural justice are complied
with. According to the learned Addl Solicitor
General, the respondent is not claiming that
rules of natural justice have been violated as the
charge memo was not approved by the
disciplinary authority. Therefore, according to
the Addl Solicitor General, the CAT as well as
the High Court erred in quashing the charge
sheet as no prejudice has been caused to the
respondent. In our opinion, the submission of
the learned Addl Solicitor General is not
factually correct. The primary submission of the
respondent was that the charge sheet not having
been issued by the disciplinary authority is
without authority of law and, therefore non est
in the eye of law. This plea of the respondent
has been accepted by the CAT as also by the
High Court. The action has been taken against
the respondent in Rule 14 (3) of the CCS (CCA)
Rules which enjoins the disciplinary authority to
draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance
of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour
into definite and distinct articles of charges.
The term “cause to be drawn up” does not mean
that the definite and distinct articles of charges
once drawn up do not have to be approved by the
disciplinary authority. The term “cause to be
drawn up” merely refers to a delegation by the
disciplinary authority to a subordinate authority
to perform the task of drawing up substance of
proposed “definite and distinct articles of charge
sheet”. These proposed articles of charge would
only be finalized upon approval by the
disciplinary authority. Undoubtedly, this Court
in the case of P V Srinivasa Sastry & Ors Vs
Comptroller and Auditor General & Ors has
held that Article 311 (1) does not say that even
the departmental proceeding must be initiated
only by the appointing authority. However, at
the same time it is pointed out that “However, it
is open to Union of India or a State Government
to make any rule prescribing that even the
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
12/20
proceeding against any delinquent officer shall
be initiated by an officer not subordinate to the
appointing authority.” It is further held that
“Any such rule shall not be inconsistent with
Article 311 of the Constitution because it will
amount to providing an additional safeguard or
protection to the holders of a civil post.”
49 Although number of collateral
issues had been raised by the learned counsel
for the appellants as well the respondents, we
deem it appropriate not to opine on the same in
view of the conclusion that the charge
sheet/charge memo having not been approved by
the disciplinary authority was non est in the eye
of law.”
9 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also
relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed
in Civil Appeal No 7764 of 2021 (Sunny Abraham -Versus-
Union of India & Another). Paragraph 12 of the said judgment is
being quoted herein below:
“12 The next question we shall
address is as to whether there would be any
difference in the position of law in this case vis-
a-vis the case of B V Gopinath (supra). In the
latter authority, the charge memorandum
without approval of the Disciplinary Authority
was held to be non est in a concluded
proceeding. The High Court has referred to the
variants of the expression non est used in two
legal phrases in the judgment under appeal. In
the context of our jurisprudence, the term non
est conveys the meaning of something treated to
be not in existence because of some legal lacuna
in the process of creation of the subject-
instrument. It goes beyond a remediable
irregularity. That is how the Coordinate Bench
has construed the impact of not having approval
of the Disciplinary Authority in issuing the
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
13/20
charge memorandum. In the event a legal
instrument is deemed to be not in existence,
because of certain fundamental defect in its
issuance, subsequent approval cannot revive its
existence and ratify acts done in pursuance of
such instrument, treating the same to be valid.
The fact that initiation of proceeding received
approval of the Disciplinary Authority could not
lighten the obligation on the part of the
employer (in this case the Union of India) in
complying with the requirement of sub-clause
(3) of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA), 1965. We have
quoted the two relevant sub-causes earlier in this
judgment. Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 14
contemplates independent approval of the
Disciplinary Authority at both stages – for
initiation of enquiry and also for drawing up or
to cause to be drawn up the charge
memorandum. In the event the requirement of
sub-clause (2) is complied with, not having the
approval at the time of issue of charge
memorandum under sub-clause (3) would
render the charge memorandum fundamentally
defective, not capable of being validated
retrospectively. What is non-existent in the eye
of the law cannot be revived retrospectively. Life
cannot be breathed into the stillborn charge
memorandum. In our opinion, the approval for
initiating disciplinary proceeding and approval
to a charge memorandum are two divisible acts,
each one requiring independent application of
mind on the part of the Disciplinary Authority.
If there is any default in the process of
application of mind independently at the time of
issue of charge memorandum by the
Disciplinary Authority, the same would not get
cured by the fact that such approval was there at
the initial stage. This was the argument on
behalf of the authorities in the case of B V
Gopinath (supra), as would be evident from
paragraph 8 of the report which we reproduce
below:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
14/20
“8. Ms Jaising has elaborately
explained the entire procedure that is followed
in each and every case before the matter is put
up before the Finance Minister for seeking
approval for initiation of the disciplinary
proceedings. According to the learned
Additional Solicitor General, the procedure
followed ensures that entire material is placed
before the Finance Minister before a decision is
taken to initiate the departmental proceedings.
She submits that approval for initiation of the
departmental proceedings would also amount to
approval of the charge memo. According to the
learned Additional Solicitor General, CAT as
well as the High Court had committed a grave
error in quashing the departmental proceedings
against the respondents, as the procedure for
taking approval of the disciplinary authority to
initiate penalty proceeding is comprehensive and
involved decision making at every level of the
hierarchy.”
10 Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits
that since the petitioner was found cheating in the departmental
examination, therefore, memo of charge was issued and the
petitioner was directed to submit his reply and thereafter the same
was examined and thereafter, having gone through the gravity of
the case, decision was taken to initiate departmental proceeding
against the petitioner to find out the veracity of the case. The
Conducting Officer submitted enquiry report by which the charges
levelled against the petitioner were found to have been proved and
the petitioner was directed to file his reply. The petitioner
submitted his written statement and after considering the Memo of
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
15/20
Charge, the enquiry report of the conducting officer and the
written statement filed by the petitioner and after examining the
same meticulously, the Disciplinary Authority came to the
conclusion that the petitioner was found indulging in unfair
means/misconduct in the departmental examination, therefore, the
punishment was awarded against him. A letter was sent to the
BPSC for its consent on the proposed punishment, upon which the
BPSC opined that the proposed punishment is not proportionate to
the charges, but the BPSC failed to state the reasons regarding the
said consent that why the proposed punishment is not
proportionate and thereafter, the entire document/evidence
available on record was examined and it was found that the
misconduct committed by the petitioner is grave in nature and the
same has also been proved, therefore, decision was taken to award
punishment to the petitioner.
11 The learned State Counsel further submits, with
regard to grant of lesser punishment to one Ehsan Ahmad, that the
person is responsible for his own act, therefore, it cannot be
compared with any other else. The learned State Counsel further
submits that as per the provisions contained in Rule 17 (3) of the
Bihar CCA Rules, no infirmity can be said to have been committed
by the Disciplinary Authority in issuing the Memo of Charge or in
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
16/20
conduct of the entire departmental proceeding. The relevant
provisions of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 is quoted hereinbelow:
“17. Proceeding for imposing major
penalties.-(1) … … …
(2) … … …
(3) Where it is proposed to hold an
inquiry against a government servant under this
Rule, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or
cause to be drawn up-
(i) the substance of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour as a definite and
distinct article of charge;
(ii) a statement of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each
article of charge, which shall contain;
(a) a statement of all relevant facts
including any admission or confession made by
the Government Servant;
(b) a list of such document by which,
and a list of such witnesses by whom, the articles
of charge are proposed to be sustained.”
12 The learned counsel for the State relies on a
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajiv
Sinha -Versus- Union of India & Others (reported in 2017 (4)
PLJR 271) specially paragraphs No 3 and 4 of the said judgment,
which are quoted herein below:
“3. Still further, in B V Gopinath’s
case (supra), an Original Application under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act,
1985 was filed against the initiation of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
17/20
departmental proceedings. But present is the
case, after the conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings, the final order of punishment has
been approved by the Finance Minister. Since
the final order has the approval of the Finance
Minister, even if it is assumed that the charge
sheet was not approved by the Finance Minister
at an earlier stage, will not confer any cause to
the petitioner to dispute the order of punishment
as with the approval of the final order, the entire
proceedings are deemed to be approved. Still
further, what is the prejudice suffered by the
petitioner has not been disclosed.
4. It may be stated that the petitioner
has not raised such an argument before the
Tribunal. Therefore, we find that initiation of
enquiry proceedings cannot be permitted to be
disputed by the petitioner after culmination of
the proceedings with the order of the Finance
Minister.”
13 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in
reply, submits that for the almost identical set of charges, one Shri
Sheo Shankar Paswan, who was also found cheating in the same
examination on the same day, has been awarded minor penalty of
withholding of promotion for two years from the due date vide
Resolution dated 14.06.2016, whereas on the same set of charges,
the petitioner has been awarded major penalty. Further, one Shri
Ashok Kumar Giri, who was also expelled from the same
examination and on the same day for the same misconduct,
challenged the order of punishment before this Court by filing
CWJC No 6173 of 2017 and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
18/20
order dated 03.05.2018 proceeded to quash the order of
punishment and directed that the said petitioner would be entitled
to all consequential benefits upon quashing of the order of
punishment. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not in
consonance with the charges and discriminatory treatment has
been meted out to the petitioner, since on the one hand for the
same charges, petitioner has been awarded major punishment
while similarly situated employees, who were also found to be
indulged in cheating on the same date in the same examination,
have been given minor punishment/penalty.
14 Having heard the rival submissions and after going
through the materials on record, it is an admitted fact that the
Memo of Charge, which was served upon the petitioner, has not
been signed/issued under the signature of the competent authority
which is in violation of the mandate of the provisions contained in
Section 17 (3) and (4) of the Bihar CCA Rules. However, the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajiv Sinha (supra),
after considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of B V Gopinath (supra), in paragraphs No 3 and
4, has observed that even if it is assumed that the Charge
Memo/Sheet was not approved by the competent authority at an
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
19/20
earlier stage, will not confer any cause to the petitioner to dispute
the order of punishment, as with the approval of the final order, the
entire proceeding are deemed to be approved.
15 It has been informed at the Bar that Civil Appeal (s)
No 5393-5394 of 2019 are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court against the orders/judgment passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Rajiv Sinha (supra) and, therefore, it
would not be appropriate to pass any order on the arguments
advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
therefore, the question raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner is left open to be decided in appropriate proceeding.
16 So far the contention of the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner with regard to parity in reward of punishment is
concerned, since for the same set of charges, the Department has
awarded lesser punishment to similarly situated employees, who
have been named above, in my considered opinion, the petitioner
is also entitled to be considered for equal treatment/relief.
17 Accordingly, the order impugned, contained in Memo
No 6187 dated 22.04.2022 issued under the signature of the Under
Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna and Memo No 12113 dated
10.09.2018 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary to
Patna High Court CWJC No.923 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
20/20
the Government, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna are hereby set aside.
18 The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary
Authority to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after
taking into account the orders of punishment passed in the cases of
Ehsan Ahmad and Sheo Shankar Paswan.
19 The decision must be taken by the Disciplinary
Authority within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
20 With the above mentioned observation/direction, this
writ petition is disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.