Patna High Court
Randhir Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The disciplinary orders are quashed as the proceeding was biased, and the matter must be re‑initiated afresh under Rule 19.
Summary
The petitioner, a clerk in Aurangabad Block, was accused of colluding with the Block Development Officer to collect gratification, based on a complaint lodged by the Senior Deputy Collector. The complaint led to the petitioner’s suspension and a departmental proceeding in which the Senior Deputy Collector, who had a personal grudge, was appointed as the conducting officer. The District Magistrate, relying on the enquiry report, ordered that two salary increments be stopped with cumulative effect, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner’s Court. The petitioner challenged these orders, alleging bias because the complainant acted as the conducting officer and contending that the punishment should have been governed by Rule 17, not Rule 19, of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The State argued that due process was observed and the order was valid under Rule 19. The High Court found the proceeding tainted by bias, held that the orders were illegal, and quashed both the District Magistrate’s order and the Service Appeal order. It directed the District Magistrate to re‑initiate the disciplinary proceeding afresh within 90 days in accordance with Rule 19.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental proceeding is vitiated by bias due to the complainant being appointed as conducting officer.
- Whether the minor punishment imposed should be governed by Rule 17 or Rule 19 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.
- Whether principles of natural justice were violated in the disciplinary process.
Subjects
- disciplinary proceeding
- bias
- natural justice
- service law
- minor punishment
- Rule 17
- Rule 19
- departmental inquiry
- writ petition
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9621 of 2024
======================================================
Randhir Kumar Singh Son of- Late Dhirendra Kumar Singh, Resident of
Village and P.O.- Poiwan, P.S.- Muffasil Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary General
Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
4. The Senior Deputy Collector-cum-Deputy Collector, District Nazarat,
Aurangabad.
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Aurangabad.
6. The Addl. Collector, Aurangabad.
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad.
8. The Block Development Officer, Aurangabad.
9. The Circle Officer Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader ( 6 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-02-2026
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner for quashing order No.120/2022-23 issued vide Memo
No.06 dated 03.01.2023 by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad,
by which it has been directed to stop two increment with
cumulative effect as well as for quashing the order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.9621 of 2024 dt.24-02-2026
2/5
05.10.2023 passed in Service Appeal No.32/2023 by the
learned Court of Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya, by
which the learned Court of Commissioner was pleased to
confirm the above said order dated 03.01.2023 after quashing
the above said orders dated 03.01.2023 and 05.10.2023, the
respondents be directed to pay the salary to the petitioner after
granting above said two increment, which was stopped with
cumulative effect and to grant any other relief(s) for which
petitioner may found entitled in accordance with law.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was working as Clerk in Aurangabad Block,
against whom complaint was made for collection of gratification
in collusion with Block Development Officer, Aurangabad.
Counsel submits that in this regard a Senior Deputy Collector
(respondent No.4), who has personal grudge with the petitioner,
sent a letter bearing No.280 dated 19.07.2022 to the District
Magistrate, Aurangabad, and by virtue of this letter the
petitioner was suspended and subsequently a decision was taken
by the District Magistrate to initiate a departmental proceeding
against him in this regard letter No.568 dated 03.08.2022 has
been sent. Counsel submits that in the said letter of District
Magistrate, the Block Development Officer was directed to
Patna High Court CWJC No.9621 of 2024 dt.24-02-2026
3/5
issue Praptra ‘Ka’. Accordingly, the said Prapatra ‘Ka’
contained in letter No.1194 dated 07.09.2022 has been issued.
He further submits that subsequently the District Magistrate,
Aurangabad has appointed the Deputy Collector as Conducting
Officer in this matter and subsequently Circle Officer,
Aurangabad has been appointed as presenting officer. He
further submits that petitioner has submitted his explanation
refuting all the charges, but the office of the District Magistrate
has directed the petitioner to appear before the conducting
officer. The petitioner appeared before the conducting officer
and denied all the charges levelled against him. He further
submits that the Circle Officer has also filed a letter No.3479
dated 03.11.2022 to the Conducting Officer intimating that there
is no evidence against this petitioner regarding illegal collection.
Counsel submits that but without consideration of the above
letter submitted by the Circle Officer, the District Magistrate has
passed the order of minor punishment imposing two increments
with non-cumulative effect. Learned Counsel submits that there
was no evidence and rule laid down under Section 17 of the the
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal)
Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCA Rules, 2005’)
has not been followed at all. In this view of the matter, he
Patna High Court CWJC No.9621 of 2024 dt.24-02-2026
4/5
submits that the entire proceeding is bad-in-law.
4. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other
hand, submits that minor punishment has been imposed and
minor punishment has not been guided under Rule 17 of the
CCA Rules, 2005; rather it has been guided under Rule 19 of the
CCA Rules, 2005. He further submits that the petitioner has not
taken any point and the point taken by him is not sustainable in
the eye of law as there is no violation of principles of natural
justice as due opportunity has been granted to him at the time of
passing the order. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the
Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry, a copy of the same
has been annexed as Annexure-R/1. He submits that the enquiry
report is against the petitioner and on the basis of enquiry report
the District Magistrate-cum-Disciplinary Authority has passed
order and there is no need of any interference.
5. After hearing the parties, this Court is very
much surprised to see two letters, the first letter is letter No.280
dated 19.07.2022 that is the first letter by which complaint has
been made against the petitioner and it is due to this letter the
entire action has been taken against the petitioner. This letter has
been issued by the Senior Deputy Collector, Aurangabad, and
the enquiry has been conducted by the same Conducting
Patna High Court CWJC No.9621 of 2024 dt.24-02-2026
5/5
Officer-cum- Senior Deputy Collector, Aurangabad. It transpires
to this Court that the person on whose complaint the entire
Disciplinary Proceeding has been initiated has been appointed
conducting officer in this case. Therefore, it transpires that this
Departmental proceeding is full of bias and it is due to this
reason the order No.120/2022-23 issued vide Memo No.06
dated 03.01.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Aurangabad and
order dated 05.10.2023 passed in the Service Appeal
No.32/2023 by the learned Court of Commissioner, Magadh
Division, Gaya, are quashed.
6. Liberty is hereby granted to the District
Magistrate, Aurangabad, to initiate the proceeding afresh and it
must be concluded within 90 days completely in accordance
with Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, 2005.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 26.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.