Patna High Court
Nitesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order, finding no illegality or perversity, and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The appellant, a contractual accountant under the Mid Day Meal Scheme, was terminated after a show‑cause notice alleged he transferred excess funds to a school. He appealed the termination through departmental and writ proceedings, which were dismissed by a Single Judge. The appellant contended that he was not provided inspection reports and that the termination was unjust. The Division Bench examined the appellant's admission of the fund transfers, the lack of any mitigating evidence, and the procedural compliance with natural justice. It held that the termination was justified, the Single Judge's findings were not illegal or perverse, and therefore the appeal could not be entertained. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the termination of the contractual accountant for alleged fund defalcation was lawful and justified.
- Whether the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition was perverse or illegal warranting interference.
- Whether the principles of natural justice were observed in the termination process.
Subjects
- Letters Patent Appeal
- termination of contract
- fund defalcation
- Mid Day Meal Scheme
- natural justice
- administrative law
- public exchequer
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1082 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2615 of 2023
======================================================
Nitesh Kumar Son of Shri Kameshwar Prasad Singh Resident of Village-
Surja Bigha, PO- Khijarsarai, PS- Hemara, Gaya, Bihar-824233.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Human Resources
Development Department Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department
Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Director, Miday Meal Scheme, Human Resources Development
Department Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
5. The Director, Pradhan Mantri Poshan Yojna, Budh Marg Patna, Bihar.
6. The District Education Officer, Bhojpur.
7. The Block Development Officer, Badhara, Bhojpur.
8. The District Program Officer, Bhojpur, Ara.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Megha Rani, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sarvesh Kumar Singh ( AAG- 13 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 16-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
against the order dated 26.07.2023 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2615
of 2023, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant
came to be dismissed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1082 of 2023 dt.16-06-2026
2/7
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant (writ
petitioner) was appointed as an Accountant cum Data Entry
Operator on contractual basis under the Mid Day Meal Scheme
vide letter dated 13.02.2009. The appellant continued working on
the said post, and was granted several extensions. Subsequently,
he was transferred to Bhojpur district on 17.08.2015, and was
working there. On 16.07.2019, the appellant was served with a
show cause notice alleging certain funds were transferred to the
bank account of the Girls Primary School, Luvkushpur, which
was found in excess and highly disproportionate to the number of
students enrolled in the said school. The appellant replied to the
same vide letter dated 22.07.2019. Later on, the appellant was
terminated from the service on 28.08.2019. Against the
termination order, the appellant preferred departmental appeal
which came to be dismissed vide memo no. 1356 dated
29.06.2022. Thereafter, the appellant preferred the impugned writ
petition which was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide
order dated 26.07.2023.
4. The learned Single Judge after considering the
materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case
dismissed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge took note of
the reply to the show cause submitted by the appellant, wherein
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1082 of 2023 dt.16-06-2026
3/7
the appellant had admitted about the alleged defalcation of
amount but had tried to justify the same. The relevant part of
impugned order is reproduced as under:
“4. The above facts show that the petitioner does
not dispute the fact that excessive amount
disproportionate to the number of students have
been transferred to the school. However, he has
taken a plea that the same has occurred due to
technical reasons. Since no complain was made, he
could not take cognizance of such transfer of funds
disproportionate to the number of students enrolled
in the school. The facts being so, it is obvious that
petitioner has accepted the latches being alleged
against him, but has tried to justify the same. Thus,
in the opinion of this Court, termination of his
contractual existence is the least that could have
been done.
5. The Court does not find any reason to interfere
with the termination of his contractual services
under order dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure 10).”
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant had continued to discharge his duties satisfactorily after
his engagement which is evident from the extensions given to
him from time to time up to the year 2019. Learned counsel
further submits that even though the appellant submitted a reply
to the show cause, a copy of inspection report was not given to
the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant
is required to disburse the amount as per the orders and directions
of the District Program Officer.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the order
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1082 of 2023 dt.16-06-2026
4/7
of the learned Single Judge requires no interference by this court.
The appellant was found guilty of defalcation of certain funds,
and therefore the contract of the appellant was terminated in
accordance with law.
7. The limited issue that arises for consideration before
this court is that whether in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the order of the learned Single Judge warrants any
interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
8. Upon perusal of materials available on record,
specifically the reply submitted by the appellant (Annexure – 7 to
the writ petition), it is an admitted position that the appellant
transferred the alleged defalcated amount. However, he has tried
to justify his actions citing technical reasons. The relevant part of
the reply submitted by the appellant is reproduced as under:
"egk'k;]
mi;qZDr izklafxd fo"k;d ds laca/k esa vafdr djuk
gS fd funs'kky;] e0Hkks0;ks0] fcgkj iVuk ds
funs'kkuqlkj ;kstuk lapkfyr fo|ky; esa e/;kg~u
Hkkstu ;kstuk ls lacaf/kr ifjorZu ewY; dh jkf'k MIS ds
ek/;e ls gh ,MokbZl tsujsV dj Hksth tkrh gSA mDr
fo|ky; esa Hkh o"kZ 2017 esa MIS ds ek/;e tsujsVsM
,MokbZl ds vk/kkj jkf'k fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA dqy 61
ukekafdr cPps okys fo|ky; esa bruh cM+h jkf'k rdfudh
dkj.k ls fuxZr gks x;k gSA bl laca/k esa fo|ky; ls ,oa
fdlh vU; Jksarksa ds ek/;e bruh cM+h jkf'k fuxZr gksus ds
laca/k esa dksbZ f'kdk;r dk;kZy; dks izkIr ugha gqvk ftlds
dkj.k bl izdkj dh fuxZr jkf'k ij esjs }kjk ;k dk;kZy;
}kjk laKku esa ugha fy;k tk ldk] blds fy, eSa {kek
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1082 of 2023 dt.16-06-2026
5/7
izkFkhZ gwWa lkFk gh Hkfo"; esa bldh iqujkZo`fr ugha gksxhA"
9. As such, it is quite clear that the appellant, being an
accountant, who was trusted with management and safeguard of
funds, acted in a manner that caused financial loss to the public
exchequer. The authorities were therefore completely within their
rights to terminate the employment of the appellant.
10. Further, upon perusal of the order dated 28.08.2019
(Annexure – 8 of the Writ Petition), it is evident that the appellant
not only once, but multiple times disbursed the amount. Thus, it
cannot be termed as a negligent act or technical glitch. The
relevant part of the said report is reproduced as under:
"ftyk dk;kZy; e/;kg~u Hkkstu ;kstuk }kjk ftruh jkf'k
e/;kg~u Hkkstu lapkyu gsrq fo|ky; dks vkoafVr fd;k
x;k Fkk] Jh euh"k dqekj flag] iwoZ iz/kkuk/;kid }kjk lHkh
jkf'k dks ,deq'r fudky fy;k tkrk FkkA mDr fo|ky;
ds lapkfyr iatkc us'kuy cSad ds [kkrk la[;k
1617000100985044 ds LVsVesaV ,oa ftyk Lrjh; dk;kZy;
ds vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls izkIr fLFkfr fuEuor gS%&
dz0 fnukad ftyk Lrjh; dk;kZy; }kjk Jh euh"k dqekj
fo|ky; dks vkoafVr dh x;h flag }kjk fudklh
jkf'k dh x;h jkf'k
1 2 3 4
1 20-01-2017 51420-00 &
2 24-01-2017 & 24000-00
3 30-01-2017 & 21200-00
4 14-02-2017 & 8000-00
5 23-03-2017 82012-00 40000-00
6 29-03-2017 & 40000-00
7 23-05-2017 82956-00 &
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1082 of 2023 dt.16-06-2026
6/7
8 24-05-2017 & 85000-00
9 24-07-2017 93412-00 &
10 25-07-2017 & 92000-00
11 06-10-2017 79251-00 &
12 09-10-2017 & 80000-00
13 30-10-2017 81025-00 &
14 01-11-2017 & 81000-00
MIS ds voyksdu ls Li"V gqvk gS fd mDr fo|ky; esa
o"kZ 2017 esa 61 cPps ukekafdr FksA ukekadu ds vk/kkj
ij ;fn ,d ekg ds fy, jkf'k tsujsV gksrk rks vf/kdre
10000-00 ¼nl gtkj :0½ tsujsV gksrk] blls Li"V gks
jgk gS fd ftyk Lrjh; dk;kZy; }kjk MIS ls tsujsVsM
Advice ls brj jkf'k c<+kdj cSd Advice ds ek/;e
ls fo|ky; dks ifjorZu ewY; dh jkf'k mikoafVr fd;k
x;k gS] tks ys[kkiky ds dk;Z {ks=kUrxZr vkrk gSA buds }
kjk tku cw>dj ljdkj }kjk pyk;h tk jgh e/;kg~u
Hkkstu ;kstuk ds ljdkjh jkf'k dk nq:i;ksx fd;k x;k
gSA ;fn MIS ls tsujsVsM Advice ds ek/;e ls lacaf/kr
fo|ky; dks jkf'k Hkstk x;k gksrk rks bruh cM+h jkf'k dk
nq:i;ksx ugha gqvk gksrkA jkf'k [kkrs esa Hkstus ds rqjUr
ckn lacaf/kr iz/kkuk/;kid }kjk ,d eq'r jkf'k dh fudklh
dj yh tkrh FkhA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd ys[kkiky ,oa
lacaf/kr iz/kkuk/;kid ds feyhHkxr ls jkf'k dk nq:i;ksx
fd;k x;k gSA"
11. The appellant has also brought nothing on record to
show that he was not provided with the relevant documents
before passing of the order of termination. It is further evident
that the reply given by the appellant was duly considered, and his
contract was terminated after following principles of natural
justice. Thus, the appellant has been unable to substantiate the
grounds of present appeal, and has been unable to dislodge the
finding of the learned Single Judge.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1082 of 2023 dt.16-06-2026
7/7
12. We are, therefore, of the view that the order of the
learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or
perversity. It is well settled that in a Letters Patent Appeal, the
Division Bench will not interfere with a learned Single Judge’s
order unless the findings are shown to be illegal or perverse. As
such, no interference is warranted in the order of the learned
Single Judge.
13. The present intra court appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Ranjan Kumar Jha, J)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.06.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.