Patna High Court

Sunil Kumar BhandariversusThe Principal Secretary

Decided: 13 March 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The Court held that the disciplinary and appellate orders are set aside for failure to apply mind as mandated by Rule 18(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005.

Summary

The petitioner, a government officer, challenged a disciplinary order dated 31‑10‑2019 that withheld three increments of pay, alleging that the department failed to consider his representation and acted without applying its mind, violating Rule 18(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005. He also contested the appellate authority’s confirmation of the order on 17‑05‑2022, claiming it ignored the principles of natural justice and the contradictory performance records. The State argued that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and that the petitioner’s explanations were unsatisfactory. The Court examined the statutory requirements of Rule 18, noting that the disciplinary authority must record reasons and properly scrutinise the employee’s representation before imposing a penalty. Finding that the authority had merely noted the representation as unsatisfactory without detailed reasoning, the Court held that the disciplinary order and the appellate confirmation were vitiated. Consequently, both orders were set aside and the matter remanded to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order within 90 days, with the writ petition disposed.

Issues considered

Did the disciplinary authority comply with the statutory requirement of Rule 18(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005 to consider the petitioner's representation before imposing punishment?
Was the punishment of withholding three increments of pay arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice?
Did the appellate authority err in confirming the disciplinary order without proper appreciation of the facts and legal position?
Should the writ of certiorari be issued to set aside the disciplinary and appellate orders?
Is a writ of mandamus appropriate for directing payment of consequential benefits?

Subjects

departmental proceedings
service law
natural justice
Rule 18 CCA Rules 2005
Bihar Government Servant Rules 2005
punishment order
writ of certiorari
mandamus
increment withholding

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9740 of 2022
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Bhandari S/o Late Lal Chand Bhandari resident of Muhalla-
Ganpatganj, P.S. - Raghopur, District - Supaul at Present In-charge
Consolidation Officer, Dinara (Rohtas).

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The Principal Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Special Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Magistate, Katihar.
6. The Enquiry Officer/Conducting Officer Cum Additional Collector, Katihar.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Parmeshwar Vishwakarma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam (AAG12)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Date : 13-03-2026
Heard learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner

and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition

with the following relief/s:-

“(a) Issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing/set aside the order dated
17.05.2022 passed by the learned court of the
Appellate/Revisional Tribunal cum Hon'ble
Minister, Revenue and Land Reform Department,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9740 of 2022 dt. 13-03-2026
2/12

Govt. of Bihar, Patna in Service Appeal Case
No.33/2019-20 whereby and whereunder the
learned tribunal has rejected the grievance of the
petitioner without considering the material
available on records and non-application of mind.
The petitioner further prayed for quashing the
punishment order dated 31.10.2019 as contained
in Memo No.728 (NiO ko) passed by the
Additional Secretary, Revenue and Land Reform
Department, Govt. of Bhar, Patna (Respondent
No.3) whereby and whereunder the Additional
Secretary has not considered 2nd Show cause
submitted by the petitioner and punished
withholding three increments of pay with
cumulative effect.
(b) Issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing the
respondents to pay all consequential benefit of the
petitioner from the date of punishment order i.e.
31.10.2019.
(c) To grant any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner was initially appointed as Circle Inspector,

Sangrampur Anchal (Munger), and duly joined his services on

21.09.1990. The petitioner has throughout discharged his duties

with utmost sincerity, dedication, and integrity. While the

petitioner was posted as Circle Officer, Ajam Nagar (Katihar),

the District Magistrate, Katihar, issued a memo of charge
Patna High Court CWJC No.9740 of 2022 dt. 13-03-2026
3/12

(Prapatra-Ka), containing three Articles of Charge, thereby

initiating a departmental proceeding against the petitioner.

Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms

Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, forwarded the said

memo of charge (Prapatra-Ka) to the petitioner with a direction

to submit a show cause reply within a period of 15 days. In

compliance with the said direction, the petitioner submitted his

detailed reply to the show cause before the Deputy Secretary,

Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar,

Patna, on 17.07.2014, within the stipulated period, specifically

denying the allegations and praying for exoneration. Learned

counsel further submits that notwithstanding the petitioner’s

reply, the Special Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms

Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, initiated a formal

departmental proceeding under Rule 17(2) of the Bihar

Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2005’).

4. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that during the

pendency of the proceeding, the petitioner was transferred from

the post of Anchal Adhikari, Ajam Nagar (Katihar), to the

Consolidation Office, Dinara (Rohtas), where he joined as In-

charge Consolidation Officer. The Additional Collector, Katihar,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9740 of 2022 dt. 13-03-2026
4/12

vide letter, directed the petitioner to appear on 18.08.2018 at

1:00 PM in connection with the departmental proceeding. The

petitioner duly appeared on the scheduled date and submitted a

written statement supported by relevant documents. Upon

conclusion of the inquiry, the Conducting Officer, after

examining the material on record submitted his report against

the petitioner to be true. Learned Senior Counsel further submits

that the Special Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms

Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, issued a second show

cause notice (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) to the petitioner

without proper application of mind and in a purely mechanical

manner. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner

submitted his reply on 16.01.2019 reiterating his defence and

requesting for exoneration. However, the disciplinary authority,

without considering the petitioner’s reply and the documents

available on record, passed the impugned order of punishment

dated 31.10.2019 contained in Memo No. 728 (Annexure-11),

whereby the punishment of withholding three increments with

cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. Learned

counsel further submits that the said punishment is arbitrary,

unjust and contrary to law. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid

order, the petitioner preferred Service Appeal Case No. 33/2019-
Patna High Court CWJC No.9740 of 2022 dt. 13-03-2026
5/12

20 (Katihar) before the Appellate/Revisional Authority-cum-

Hon’ble Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,

Government of Bihar, Patna. However, the said appeal also

came to be rejected vide order dated 17.05.2022 without proper

appreciation of the facts and the legal position, as contained in

Annexure-12 to the writ petition.

5. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the impugned punishment order is self-

contradictory and suffers from non-application of mind,

inasmuch as the department itself has consistently recorded

favourable Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) acknowledging

the petitioner’s efficiency and excellence in work, while

simultaneously punishing him on grounds of alleged

inefficiency. Such contradictory actions on the part of the

respondents render the entire departmental proceeding vitiated,

arbitrary, and liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. The

impugned orders are violative of the principles of natural

justice, fairness, and reasonableness, and are thus unsustainable

in the eyes of law.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State,

on the other hand, submits that the present writ petition is

wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and is therefore liable to
Patna High Court CWJC No.9740 of 2022 dt. 13-03-2026
6/12

be dismissed. It is further submitted that the impugned orders

have been passed strictly in accordance with law and upon due

consideration of the materials available on record. The petitioner

joined the post of Circle Officer, Anchal Adhikari, Azamnagar,

in the year 2013. During the course of his posting, several

serious allegations were noticed against him, inter alia,

unauthorized absence, disobedience of lawful orders, and

avoidance of official duties, which adversely affected the

smooth functioning of the office. Upon noticing the said

irregularities, the petitioner was duly called upon to explain the

allegations. However, his explanation was found to be

unsatisfactory, which necessitated the initiation of a formal

departmental proceeding under Rule 17(2) of the Rules, 2005.

For the purpose of conducting the departmental proceeding, the

Additional Collector, Katihar, was appointed as the Conducting

Officer. The proceeding was conducted in accordance with the

prescribed procedure and after affording adequate and

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7. It is further submitted that upon conclusion of the

inquiry, the Conducting Officer submitted his report vide Letter

No. 790 dated 27.09.2018, wherein the charges levelled against

the petitioner were found duly proved based on the evidence and
Patna High Court CWJC No.9740 of 2022 dt. 13-03-2026
7/12

materials brought on record. Thereafter, in compliance with the

statutory requirements, a second show cause notice was issued

to the petitioner vide Departmental Letter No. 4 dated

21.01.2019, granting him an opportunity to submit his

representation against the findings recorded in the inquiry

report. The petitioner submitted his representation, which, along

with the allegations, his explanations, and the inquiry report,

was carefully examined by the competent authority. Upon

thorough consideration of all relevant aspects, the disciplinary

authority arrived at a reasoned conclusion that the charges stood

proved. Consequently, the disciplinary authority, in exercise of

powers conferred under the relevant rules, imposed the

punishment of withholding three increments of pay with

cumulative effect. The said punishment is commensurate with

and proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct established

during the inquiry. Against the said order of the Disciplinary

Authority, the petitioner preferred Service Appeal Case No.

33/2019-20 before the Appellate – cum - Revisional Authority-

cum-Hon’ble Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,

Government of Bihar, Patna. The Appellate Authority, upon due

consideration, confirmed the punishment order and rejected the

appeal vide order dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure-11 to the writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.9740 of 2022 dt. 13-03-2026
8/12

petition).

8. Learned counsel for the State further submits that

the entire departmental proceeding was conducted in strict

adherence to the principles of natural justice, and no procedural

irregularity, illegality, or infirmity has been committed so as to

warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its writ

jurisdiction. As such, the writ petition, being devoid of any legal

merit, deserves to be dismissed.

9. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the

records, it transpires to this Court that a major punishment has

been imposed upon the petitioner by virtue of Memo No. 728

dated 31.10.2019. In order to decide the present writ petition,

this Court deems it appropriate to quote the provisions of Rule

18 of CCA Rules, 2005, as under :-

“18. Action on the inquiry report.
(1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself
the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by
it in writing, may remit the case to the inquiring authority
for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority
shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry
according to the provisions of Rule 17 as far as may be.
(2)The disciplinary authority, after receipt of
the enquiry report as per Rule 17 (23)(ii) or as per sub-
rule (1), shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the
inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its
reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding
on such charge, if the evidences on record is sufficient for
the purpose.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9740 of 2022 dt. 13-03-2026
9/12

(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-
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.
(4)The disciplinary authority shall consider the
representation or submission, if any, submitted by the
Government Servant before proceeding further in the
manner specified in sub rules (5) and (6).
(5)If the disciplinary authority having regard to
its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the
opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to
(v) of Rule 14 should be imposed on the Government
Servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in
Rule 19, make an order imposing such penalty.
(6) If the disciplinary authority, having regard
to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and
on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is
of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses
[(vi) to (xi)] of Rule 14 should be imposed on the
Government Servant, it shall make an order imposing
such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the
Government Servant any opportunity of making
representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
rules (5) and (6), in every case where it is necessary to
consult the Commission, the Commission shall be
consulted and its advice shall be taken into consideration
before making any order imposing any penalty on the
Government Servant.”

10. Rule 18 specifically deals with the action to be

taken on the enquiry report. It is contended that after receipt of

the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, as per Rule 17(23)
Patna High Court CWJC No.9740 of 2022 dt. 13-03-2026
10/12

(ii) of CCA Rules, 2005, if it disagrees with the findings of the

Enquiry Officer, is required to record reasons for such

disagreement and record its own findings. However, in case of

agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the

disciplinary authority is required to issue a second show cause

notice to the delinquent employee.

11. In the present case, a second show cause notice

was issued and the petitioner also submitted his reply to the said

notice. Rule 18(4) of the aforesaid Rules categorically provides

that the disciplinary authority shall consider the representation

or submission, if any, submitted by the Government servant

before proceeding further in the manner specified in sub-rules

(5) and (6).

12. However, in the present case, the statutory

requirement of Rule 18(4) has not been complied with. The Rule

mandates that the disciplinary authority shall consider the

representation or submission submitted by the Government

servant, but from the impugned order it appears that the

representation submitted by the petitioner has been dealt with in

the following manner:

“Jh HkaMkjh ds fo:) izfrosnu vkjksiksa]
muds }kjk lefiZr Li’Vhdj.k] lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ls
izkIr tkWp izfrosnu ,oa Jh HkaMkjh }kjk lefiZr f}rh;
Patna High Court CWJC No.9740 of 2022 dt. 13-03-2026
11/12

dkj.k&i`PNk@vH;kosnu ds leh{ksijkUr ik;k x;k fd
vkjksih dk Li’Vhdj.k Lohdkj ;ksX; larks’kizn ugha gSA”

13. It is well settled that a disciplinary proceeding is a

quasi-judicial proceeding. A mere observation that the

representation submitted by the delinquent employee is not

satisfactory does not meet the requirement of law. The

disciplinary authority is required to undertake proper scrutiny of

the representation and assign reasons while passing the final

order, in compliance with Rule 18(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005.

14. In the present case, this Court is of the considered

view that the disciplinary authority has failed to apply its mind

in accordance with the mandate of Rule 18(4) of the CCA Rules,

2005. For this reason, this Court finds that the order contained

in Memo No. 728 dated 31.10.2019 cannot be sustained in the

eyes of law. The appellate authority has also failed to apply its

judicial mind and has merely observed that the explanation

submitted in response to the second show cause notice was not

found satisfactory.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, both the orders, namely

the disciplinary order dated 31.10.2019 as contained in Memo

No.728 (NiO ko) passed by respondent No.3, namely, the

Additional Secretary, Revenue and Land Reform Department,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9740 of 2022 dt. 13-03-2026
12/12

Govt. of Bhar, Patna (( Annexure-11) and the appellate order

dated 17.05.2022 passed by the learned court of the

Appellate/Revisional Tribunal cum Hon'ble Minister, Revenue

and Land Reform Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna in Service

Appeal Case No.33/2019-20 (Annexure-12), are hereby set

aside.

16. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the

disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order, after due

consideration of the second show-cause reply of the petitioner,

within a period of 90 days from the date of this order

(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 31.01.2026
Uploading Date 16/03/2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…