Patna High Court
BiharversusKailash Prasad
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Single Judge’s order that the disciplinary punishment is unsustainable because the enquiry violated Rule 17(3) and was conducted without any valid evidence.
Summary
The State of Bihar appealed against a Patna High Court Single Judge’s order that quashed a disciplinary punishment imposed on Deputy Superintendent of Police Kailash Prasad for alleged procedural lapses during a liquor‑prohibition raid. The punishment—withholding three pay increments—was based on a charge memo that omitted the list of witnesses and denied the officer cross‑examination, violating Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The enquiry officer recorded statements of six witnesses but did not discuss the evidence or allow the respondent to challenge them, and no substantive evidence was led. The Court held that such procedural defects and the absence of any material evidence rendered the disciplinary findings unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the orders dated 08‑06‑2020 and 31‑12‑2020. While the State sought a remand or deferment pending a larger bench reference, the Court affirmed the Single Judge’s decision and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary proceeding violated Rule 17(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 by not furnishing the list of witnesses and denying cross‑examination.
- Whether the enquiry officer’s findings were sustainable in the absence of any material evidence.
- Whether the Letters Patent Appeal should be dismissed or remanded in view of the procedural defects and the pending reference of a larger bench.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- departmental inquiry
- natural justice
- Rule 17
- cross‑examination
- major punishment
- withholding increments
- Letters Patent Appeal
- Bihar police
- prohibition act
- procedural irregularities
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1044 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15101 of 2021
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through Home Principal Secretary Police Department.
2. The Accountant General through the In-charge Officer, Finance (A.G.),
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department (Police Branch), Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department,
Bihar, Patna.
6. The Additional General of Police (Head Quarter).
7. The Inspector General of Police, Head Quarter.
8. IG, Special Branch-cum-Conducting Officer,
9. DIG, Patna.
10. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Kailash Prasad Son of Haricharan Prasad, Resident of Ward No. 02 Village -
Pipra, P.S. - Barauli, District Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. N.H.Khan, SC-1
Mr. Md. Irshad, AC to SC-1
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Arya Achint, Advocate
Mrs. Shashi Priya, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 19-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
State of Bihar challenging the order dated 27.08.2025 of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
2/21
learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15101 of 2021,
whereby and whereunder, while allowing the writ petition, the
learned Court has quashed the impugned order dated 08.06.2020
whereunder the Disciplinary Authority awarded a major penalty
of withholding three increments with cumulative effect and
order dated 31.12.2020 whereunder the writ petitioner’s appeal
(Memorial) to the Hon’ble Chief Minister was rejected and it
was held that the writ petitioner is entitled to get entire
consequential benefits, including his promotion and also arrears
of his salary.
The writ petition was filed by the respondent Kailash
Prasad seeking for following reliefs :-
“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of Memo No.
3859 dated 8.6.2020 issued under the
signature of the Special Secretary, Home
Department (Police Branch), Bihar,
Patna whereby and where under the
petitioner has been awarded major
punishment in form of withholding of
three increments of pay with cumulative
effect without following the procedure for
awarding of major punishment as
stipulated under Rule-17 of Bihar CCA
Rules, 2005.
(ii) For further quashing of the order of
confirmation passed against the
memorial presented by the petitioner
against the award of major punishment
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
3/21
vide Memo No. 8940 dated 31.12.2020
issued under the signature of the Special
Secretary, Home Department (Police
Branch), Bihar, Patna.
(iii) And for any such other reliefs for
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper.”
3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that during a
liquor prohibition drive to strictly implement the newly enacted
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to
Act, 2016), a raid was conducted in Hotel Panache, situated
alongside Gandhi Maidan. In course of such raid, it was found
that some customers residing in the Panache Hotel were
indulged in the consumption of liquor in violation of Act, 2016
and in connection with the raid, Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No.
147 of 2016 dated 26.04.2016 was registered and the
apprehended accused persons were forwarded to the
jurisdictional Magistrate.
4. After lodging of the criminal case, the petitioner
who was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police being the
Superior Officer, was to carry out his duties. It is the case of the
petitioner that he performed his duty in accordance with law.
However, ADG (CID) issued a detailed review letter alleging
procedural lapses in the raid and investigation. The Additional
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
4/21
Director General of Police, Patna through Senior Superintendent
of Police, Patna asked about the status as well as the show cause
from the petitioner, about his stand regarding investigation of
the case. The petitioner filed a clarification/explanation, in
which he pointed out that he had not made any misconduct or
dereliction of duty. The first memo of charge in Form ‘K’ was
served on the petitioner who filed a detailed reply on
24.10.2016, refuting all the allegations about the misconduct
and the dereliction and side by side he pleaded not guilty. A
departmental proceeding was recommended against the
petitioner who submitted his written statement of defence.
While the Departmental Proceeding was in progress
against the petitioner, he also submitted a supplementary show
cause, in which he stated that under what circumstances the
Breath Analyzer Test was not conducted during course of
investigation and more particularly that the Breath Analyzer
Machine was not available in the police station. The Inquiry
Officer submitted a report and the Enquiry Report was officially
communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his
final reply pointing at the perversity in the Enquiry Report.
However the Disciplinary Authority imposed major punishment
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
5/21
which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Chief Minister in
Memorial.
5. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the charge
memo did not contain the list of witnesses which has caused
serious prejudice to him. It is the further case of the writ
petitioner that during course of Departmental Proceeding, he
submitted application, wherein he specifically pointed out that
such proceeding was conducted in gross violation of Rule 17
and 18 of Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred as 2005 Rules).
Even after such irregularity was pointed out, the Conducting
Officer continued with the enquiry and ultimately concluded the
proceeding.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the Departmental
Enquiry was conducted in a slipshod manner by the Enquiry
Officer and the report was submitted to the Department of
Home, without considering the defence taken by the petitioner.
When the enquiry report was served on the petitioner, he
submitted detailed reply and pointed out that the enquiry
suffered from several infirmities and irregularities and he also
stated that before conclusion of the criminal proceeding initiated
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
6/21
in pursuance of Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 147 of 2016, the
conclusion of the enquiry and giving any kind of adverse report
would not be proper and justified.
7. That in spite of reply to the second show notice, the
respondent authorities inflicted punishment and awarded
stoppage of three increments of pay with cumulative effect. The
petitioner submitted memorial on 06.07.2020 before the
Hon’ble Chief Minister through the Department of Home
(Police Branch), which was also rejected vide Memo No. 8940
dated 31.12.2020 and the punishment awarded to the petitioner
was confirmed.
8. After issuance of notice, counter affidavit was filed
on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 3 by one Girish Mohan
Thakur, Under Secretary, Home Department, Bihar, wherein it is
stated that there was no illegality in the Departmental
Proceeding and due opportunity was afforded to the writ
petitioner and the replies of the petitioner alongwith the
evidence and materials available on record were duly considered
at Government level. The punishment was proportionate to the
charges levelled and since the Departmental Proceeding was
initiated against the petitioner and conducted according to the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
7/21
rules and procedures without any legal infirmity and the
petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity to place his
defence, but he has failed to produce any clinching evidence to
support his claim and to refute the allegations levelled against
him, therefore, the order passed by the authorities against the
petitioner is quite justified.
9. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order,
after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and
going through the pleadings has been pleased to observe as
follows :-
“8. Perusal of the charge memo issued to
the petitioner clearly shows that along
with the charge memo no list of witnesses
was prepared nor provided to the
petitioner. Perusal of the enquiry report
further shows that during course of
enquiry, the statements of six witnesses
were recorded by the enquiry officer.
However, the enquiry report further
shows that though the statements of six
witnesses were recorded by the enquiry
officer but there is no material available
with the enquiry report which shows that
any opportunity of cross-examination of
those witnesses was given to the
petitioner.
9. At this juncture, it would
be appropriate to reproduce the
allegations made against the petitioner in
the charge memo, which reads thus:
3- vij iqfyl
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
8/21
egkfuns”kd] vijk/k
vuqla/kku foHkkx] fcgkj]
iVuk us leh{kk ds nkSjku
ik;k fd ;s iukl gksVy
esa Nkikekjh ds nkSjku
ojh; iqfyl inkf/kdkjh
ds :i eas “kkfey FksA
buds }kjk Nkikekjh ds
nkSjku fuEufyf[kr
visf{kr dkjZokbZ vius
v/khuLFk iqfyl
inkf/kdkfj;ksa ls ugha
djk;h x;h ftlds dkj.k
vfHk;kstu i{k detksj
gqvk ,oa vfHk;qDrksa dks
ykHk feyk%&
(A) ?kVukLFky dk
QksVksxzkQh@fofM;ksxzkQh
ugha djk;h x;hA
(B) ftl “kjkc ,oa vU;
lkexzh dks iukl gksVy
ls tCr dh x;h mldk
mlh le; tIrh&lwph
ugha cuok;h x;h cfYd
dy gksdj rFkkdfFkr
tIrh lwph ij xokgksa dk
gLrk{kj fy;k x;kA
(C) tIr fd;s x, CySd
MkWx] fVªiy xksYM fjtoZ
fOgLdh dk mRiknu dsUnz
ds Hk.Mkj ls fdl
gkWylsyj ,oa fjVsyj dks
mDr cSp dk cksry fn;k
x;k rFkk fjVsyj }kjk
fdl xzkgd dks cspk
x;k] dk tkap ugha
djk;k x;kA
(D) CyM lSEiy dks cM+s
ykijokg <+ax ls Fkkuk
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
9/21
Lrj ij j[kk x;k vkSj
13 fnuksa ds ckn tkap
gsrq fof/k&iz;ksx”kkyk
Hkstk x;kA bls buds }
kjk xaHkhjrk ls ugha fy;k
x;kA
(E) tc vfHk;qDrksa dks
vYdksgy ds izHkko ugha
jgus dk izfrosnu
fpfdRld }kjk fn;k x;k
rks buds }kjk viuh
ns[k&js[k esa esfMdy cksMZ
ugha djk;k x;kA
(F) czsFk ,ukykbZtj
;krk;kr esa miyC/k jgus
ds ckotwn mldks
buds }kjk mi;ksx esa
ugha yk;k x;kA
(G) izkFkfedh vfHk;qDr
gksVy ekfyd dks ?
kVukLFky ij ekStwn
jgus ds ckotwn
fxjQ~rkjh ugha djk;h
x;hA
(H) buds }kjk lgh <+ax
ls ojh; iqfyl
inkf/kdkjh ds usr`RodrkZ
ds :i esa fuokZg ugha
fd;k x;kA
10. Plain reading of the
said allegations clearly shows that there
were eight allegations made against the
petitioner in the charge memo. The
enquiry officer though recorded the
statements of six witnesses during course
of enquiry, however, without discussing
the evidence, as adduced by the
presenting officer, the enquiry officer has
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
10/21
given his finding which is also required
to be reproduced herein:
bl rjg lapkyu ds dze
esa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds
izn”kksZa] lkf{k;ksa ds
c;ku ,oa mijksDr rF;ksa
ls vipkjh Jh dSyk”k
izlkn] rRdkfyu iqfyl
mik/kh{kd] uxj] iVuk]
lEizfr iqfyl mik/kh{kd]
fc0lS0iq0&03] cks/kx;k
ds fo:) xkW/kh eSnku
Fkkuk dkaM laa0&147@16]
fn0&26-04-2016] /kkjk
47¼,½@53¼ch½@63 fcgkj
mRikn ¼lalks/ku½
vf/kfu;e&2016 esa
vfHk;kstu i{k dks
visf{kr etcwrh nsus gsrq
visf{kr dkjZokbZ djus esa
f”kfFkyrk cjrus ds fy,
dkaM ds
vuqla/kkudrkZ ,oa ftyk
Lrj ds vU; iqfyl
inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds
lkFk&lkFk buds fo:)
Hkh yxk;s x;s&vkjksiksa
dh iqf’V gksrh gSA buds
cpko esa ,slk dksbZ rF;
ugha gS ftlls buds
fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa
dk [k.Mu gks lds
vkSj ;g lafpdk lacaf/kr
lHkh dkxtkrksa ,oa nks
izfr esa eUrO; ds lkFk
layXu dj vxzrj
dkjZokbZ gsrq okil dh
tkrh gSA
11. Perusal of the above
mentioned allegations made against the
petitioner in the charge memo as well as
the finding as referred herein above by
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
11/21
the enquiry officer, further shows that
without discussing the evidence, as
adduced by the presenting officer upon
each and every allegation, the enquiry
officer has arrived at the conclusion that
all the allegations made against the
petitioner are duly proved. Thus, it is also
clear that the enquiry officer without
scrutinizing the evidence mechanically
arrived at the conclusion that the
charges/allegations made against the
petitioner are duly proved.
12. Taking into
consideration the above materials
available on record and the discussions
made above, it is quite clear that in this
case along with the charge memo, no list
of witnesses were prepared nor provided
to the petitioner Therefore, there is a
clear cut violation of Rule 17 (3) of Bihar
CCA Rules, 2005. It is also clear that
during course of enquiry, six witnesses
were examined by the enquiry officer.
However, opportunity of cross-
examination of those witnesses were also
not provided to the petitioner. It is also
clear that without discussing the
evidence on record with regard to the
each allegation made against the
petitioner, the enquiry officer
mechanically recorded his finding that
the charges levelled against the
petitioner are duly proved. Even after the
reply of show cause submitted by the
petitioner while passing the order of
punishment, the disciplinary authority
has not considered those aspects nor the
authority, who decided the memorial at
the time of deciding the memorial of the
petitioner, considered this aspect. In the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
12/21
light of the above, both the impugned
orders dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure-11)
and 31.12.2020 (Annexure-13) are liable
to be set aside.
13. Resultantly, the writ
petition is allowed.”
10. The learned counsel appearing for the State
submits that the main reason on which the impugned order has
been passed is that the Disciplinary Proceeding suffers from
technicality to the extent of non-furnishing the names of
witnesses to the petitioner, which had caused prejudice to the
writ petitioner, hence the matter may be relegated to the
Disciplinary authority to proceed afresh. He argued that
Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1324
of 2019 vide order dated 20.02.2025, having taken note of
inconsistent views of two different Division Bench on such
issue has referred the matter to the larger Bench for
consideration and since the reference is yet to be answered, this
Letters Patent Appeal hearing should be deferred. The order is
placed before us, which is taken on record.
11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent, on the other hand contended that the issue involved
in this case is not only the technicality aspect, but also on the
other grounds and therefore, this case can be decided and there
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
13/21
is no need to wait for the result of the decision to be taken by
the larger Bench in terms with the reference made on
20.02.2025 passed in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1324 of
2019.
12. The learned Senior Counsel placed the charges
and also the finding and the second show cause submitted by the
writ petitioner as also the impugned order. She also placed
reliance upon the Division Bench decisions of this Court in the
case of Srikant Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 58 of 2024, dated 03.09.2024 and The State
of Bihar & Ors. vs. Anil Kumar Sinha, in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 770 of 2024, order dated 20.11.2024.
In the case of Srikant Singh (supra), after considering
the ratio laid down in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs.
Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 and
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. vs B.
Karunakar & Ors. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Union of
India & Ors. vs. P. Gunnasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC
610. It has been observed as follows :-
“6. A remand on finding the enquiry
proceeding to be vitiated on a technical
ground; is to avoid prejudice to the
delinquent employee. As has been held, it
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
14/21
is not a measure to cover up the
negligence or laxity of the Disciplinary
Authority in conducting a proper enquiry.
Even in Prabhat Kumar (supra) though a
disciplinary enquiry was constituted,
since the delinquent did not appear in the
departmental proceedings, he stood
terminated, without conducting the
enquiry. This is again a technical defect
which could have been cured by the
Enquiring Authority by proceeding with
the enquiry after declaring the delinquent
ex parte and allowing the witnesses to
produce the documents, which would
prove the charge. This is quite distinct
from the facts of the present case, which
clearly indicate that despite a
disciplinary enquiry there was no witness
examined.
7. Mere production of documents would
not be valid evidence, was the finding in
Roop Singh Negi (supra). In the present
case, the complainant could have been
examined or at least, the officer who
carried out the trap could have been
examined. The Presenting Officer
appointed by the Disciplinary Authority
merely produced certain documents,
which indicated that a trap case was filed
against the petitioner. Such production of
documents without examination of
witnesses to prove the same cannot be
sustained, as has been held in Roop
Singh Negi (supra). We also place
reliance on the judgment in Vikash
Kumar (supra).”
13. In the case of Anil Kumar Sinha (supra), in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 770 of 2024, it has been held as
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
15/21
follows :-
“20. So far as the submission of the learned
Additional Advocate General that the case
should atleast have been remanded back for
proceeding afresh from the stage, the
departmental proceeding was considered
defective, is concerned, it would be relevant to
refer to the Division Bench judgment dated
21.8.2024 of this Court in LPA no. 446 of 2024
(The State of Bihar & Ors. vs Vikas Kumar)
wherein this Court held as follows :-
“6. Faced with the above prospect, the
learned Advocate General urged that this
was a fit case where the learned Single
Judge ought to have remanded the matter
to the Enquiry Officer.
7. We beg to differ, since the ground on
which the dismissal order was interfered
with, was not a technical defect in the
conduct of the enquiry. It is only when
the termination of an employee is faulted
on a technical ground, there is need for a
remand on the ground inter alia of
violation of principles of natural justice;
so as to resume the enquiry from the
stage at which the technical defect is
noticed. Where, in an enquiry carried
out, there was no proper evidence led, the
management cannot be allowed to
correct its mistake by making a remand
and permitting fresh evidence to be led to
find the delinquent employee guilty of the
misconduct.
8. The decisions in Union of India v.
Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588
and ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4
SCC 727; considered the issue of denial
of reasonable opportunity, when the
enquiry report was not supplied to the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
16/21
delinquent employee; after the 42nd
amendment of the Constitution of India.
Before the 42nd amendment of the
Constitution, there was a requirement to
issue notice to the delinquent employee to
show-cause against the punishment
proposed, for which a reasonable
opportunity of making representation on
the penalty proposed was a mandatory
condition under Article 311 (2) of the
Constitution of India. The 42nd
amendment removed the above condition
and it was the contention of the
employers that there was no requirement
to supply the enquiry report. It was
categorically held that whenever the
Enquiry Officer is someone other than
the Disciplinary Authority and the report
of the Enquiry Officer holds the employee
guilty of all or any of the charges; with
proposal for any punishment or not, the
delinquent employee is entitled to a copy
of the report to enable him to make a
representation to the Disciplinary
Authority against the findings in the
report.
9. The non-furnishing of the report,
hence amounts to violation of principles
of natural justice; in which context a
remand is necessitated, to supply the
enquiry report and afford a reasonable
opportunity to the delinquent to represent
against the prejudicial findings. The
remand is to cure the technical defect, so
as to avoid any prejudice being caused to
the delinquent, by reason of denial of a
reasonable opportunity, before being
penalized and not to clear up the lacuna
committed by the Management in the
conduct of the enquiry; especially when
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
17/21
the enquiry was carried out in a
negligent manner without adducing any
valid evidence.
10. ECIL (supra) by a larger Bench, on a
reference made, reaffirmed the dictum in
Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra). These
were cases in which the Hon’ble Supreme
Court found that a reasonable
opportunity, to defend the allegation of
misconduct levelled and represent
against the findings of the enquiry report,
was not afforded to the delinquent
employee; in which case alone there
could be a remand made for the purpose
of curing the defect and affording a
reasonable opportunity to the delinquent
employee.”
21. Further relying on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India & Ors vs. P. Gunasekaran; (2015) 2 SCC
610, this Court in the case of Vikash Kumar
(supra) further proceeded to hold as follows :-
“12. From the above extract it is
very clear that the High Court
under Article 226/227 is entitled
to interfere when the finding of
fact is based on no evidence. If in
every case where no valid
evidence is led at the enquiry
proceedings, there is a remand
made, it would be offering a
premium to the negligence of the
Management/ Disciplinary
Authority and condoning the levity
with which the departmental
enquiry was conducted. It is the
Disciplinary Authority who
appoints the Enquiry Officer and
also the Presenting Officer. We
would think that the Presenting
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
18/21
Officer would be well versed in
the procedures and also be
informed of the manner in which
evidence has to be led before the
Enquiry Officer to prove the
misconduct alleged against the
delinquent employee.
13. In disciplinary enquiry
proceedings, it is also the trite
principle that the standard of
proof is preponderance of
probability as distinguished from
proof beyond reasonable doubt; as
would be required in a criminal
prosecution. However, if there is
no evidence led at the enquiry,
there is no question of any
preponderance of probability
being drawn to find the
allegations proved nor can the
delinquent be penalized on the
basis of peremptory findings
without any valid evidence.”
22. Coming to the facts of the instant case, this
Court finds that no document having been
brought on evidence except for the letter dated
10.12.2014 of the Vigilance Investigation
Bureau and more so, not a single witness having
been examined to prove the charges against the
writ petitioner, it is a case of no evidence having
been led against the writ petitioner in the
departmental proceeding. The case not being
one of technical defect caused to the delinquent
as may occur on account of non-supply of
enquiry report, order remanding the matter, in
terms of the judgment in the case of Vikash
Kumar (supra) would amount to ‘offering a
premium to the negligence of the Management/
Disciplinary Authority and condoning the levity
with which the departmental enquiry was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
19/21
conducted’.
23. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances
of the case, the Court finds the order of
punishment and the appellate order to be
unsustainable and the learned Single Judge has
rightly quashed both the orders and allowed the
writ application with all consequential financial
benefits.”
14. On perusal of the impugned order, we are of the
view that the prayer of the petitioner was not allowed solely on
the ground of technicality in the disciplinary proceeding to the
extent of non-supply of list of witnesses. The reasons have been
given as to how the enquiry officer even after recording the
statements of six witnesses during course of enquiry, without
discussing the evidence, has given the findings against the
petitioner. The learned Single Judge has also observed that once
the evidence has not been scrutinized and in a mechanical
manner, the conclusions has been arrived at, that the charges and
allegations made against the petitioner are duly proved, the
same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Apart from such finding, of course, it has been held
that there is clear violation of the Rule 17(3) of Bihar CCA
Rules, 2005, however, it has been held that the opportunity of
cross-examination of those witnesses were also not provided to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
20/21
the writ petitioner. It has been also held that when the reply to
the show cause was submitted by the petitioner, while passing
the order of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority ought to
have considered the same.
Therefore the submission that has been raised by the
learned counsel for the State that the matter be deferred till a
decision is taken by the larger Bench as per the reference made
is in no way applicable in this case. The impugned order has
been passed and the orders dated 08.06.2020 and 31.12.2020,
which were challenged by the petitioner, were set aside on
various grounds and not only on the ground of non-compliance
of the provision under Rule 17(3) of 2005 Rules. We are of the
humble view that if on the basis of other grounds apart from the
ground of non-compliance of the provision under Rule 17(3) of
2005 Rules, the impugned order is sustainable, there is no need
for awaiting the reference judgment.
15. After perusing the impugned order, we are of the
view that there is no perversity or illegality in it and no palpable
unreasonableness in the impugned order or it cannot be said that
it is inconsistent with any position of law. Law is well settled
that Appellate Bench shall not disturb the finding of the Single
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1044 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
21/21
Bench merely because another view or a better view is possible.
Letters Patent Appeal provides an internal check and balance,
ensuring judicial oversight and protecting citizens’ rights by
allowing for a more thorough review of a Single Judge’s
decision.
In the limited scope of interference with the Single
Judge order in the Letters Patent Appeal, which is of a
corrective jurisdiction, we are not inclined to interfere with the
same.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…