Kumari SanjuversusThe State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary,

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        Letters Patent Appeal No. 281 of 2025
                                          In
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17872 of 2023
     ======================================================
     Kumari Sanju Wife of Late Ajay Kumar, Resident of - C/o Late Sudarshan
     Sharma, B.K. Dutta Lane, New Jakkanpur, P.O.-GPO, P.S. - Jakkanpur,
     District- Patna.
                                                      ... ...Petitioner-Appellant/s
                                        Versus

1.   The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
     Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
3.   The Regional Deputy Director, Education, Region- Patna.
4.   The District Education Officer, Patna.
5.   The District Program Officer (Establishment), Patna.
6.   The District Program Officer, Primary Education Patna.
                                      ... ... Respondent-Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance:
     For the Appellant/s    :      Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate
                                   Mr. Vardaan Mangalam, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :      Mr. Anjaneya Singh, AC to AAG-13
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             and
             HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
     ORAL JUDGMENT
     (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
     Date: 22-01-2026

              This letters patent appeal has been filed by the appellant,

      Kumari Sanju, challenging the order dated 29.01.2025, passed

      by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.17872 of

      2023 whereby and whereunder though the enquiry report, the

      order of termination dt. 19.08.2023 and the appellate order dated

      16.11.2023, qua the appellant have been quashed, however the

      respondents have been directed to conduct the department
Patna High Court L.P.A No.281 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                            2/14




         proceedings afresh and conclude the same within six months, in

         accordance with law, nonetheless the payment of consequential

         benefits has been made dependent upon the result of the fresh

         departmental proceeding to be conducted by the respondents.

                 2.       The writ petition was filed by the appellant with the

         following prayers:-

                 “A. To set aside Punishment of Removal of petitioner
                 issued vide Memo no.-1 Yo-43/2021, 7409 dated 19-08-
                 2023, by the Disciplinary Authority, the District Program
                 Officer (Establishment), Patna as contained in Annexure-
                 P/10.
                 B. To set aside Order contained in Memo no.1379 dated
                 16-11-2023, as contained in Annexure- P/12 whereby the
                 Appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by the
                 Appellate Authority, the Regional Deputy Director,
                 Education, Patna Region, Patna.
                 C. To set aside Inquiry Report dated 06-04-2023
                 submitted by the Inquiry Officer communicated to the
                 petitioner vide letter no.4272 dated 26-04-2023 by the
                 Disciplinary Authority, as contained in Annexure-P/6, on
                 account of it being perverse.”

                 3.       The case of the appellant, as set out in the writ

         petition is that she was appointed by the then District Education

         Officer, Patna vide Memo dated 16.04.1988 on the post of

         Assistant Teacher and was posted at the Middle School,

         Raghunath Tola, Danapur, Patna where she joined on

         18.04.1988. It has been stated that during the course of her

         service, she got all the due benefits, including the benefits of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.281 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                            3/14




         second assured career progression, however when 1½ years

         approximately was left for her to retire, the District Programme

         Officer (Establishment), Patna vide letter dated 23.09.2021

         asked the appellant herein to furnish her explanation regarding

         the complaint made by the Secretary, Tejaswai Fans Association

         Kurji, Magadh Colony, Sadakat Ashram, Patna with regard to

         her illegal appointment. The appellant had furnished her

         explanation on 08.11.2021, categorically stating therein that she

         has been appointed after undergoing the due process of selection

         and that too by the competent authority as also she has

         completed 34 years of service. However, the explanation

         furnished by the appellant was not considered and vide Memo

         dated 06.05.2022, issued by the disciplinary authority, i.e the

         District      Programme          Officer     (Establishment),   Patna,   a

         departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant

         under the provisions of the Bihar Government Servants

         (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter

         referred to as the “Rules, 2005”), a conducting officer was

         appointed, one presenting officer was also appointed and a

         charge sheet in ‘Prapatra-Ka’, containing the description of the

         charges framed against the appellant and the evidence made

         available by the complainant, were served upon the appellant,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.281 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                            4/14




         while the conducting officer/presenting officer were directed to

         enquire into the charges framed in ‘Prapatra-Ka’ and submit

         enquiry report within 45 days. It may be mentioned here that in

         ‘Prapatra-Ka’, the following charges were levelled:-

                 “(i) Name of the appellant being not present in the Panel
                 pertaining to Teacher appointment of the year 1988;
                 (ii) Despite her name being not present in the panel, the
                 appellant was appointment on the post of assistant
                 Teacher;
                 (iii) The appellant was appointment without adhering to
                 the prescribed procedure.”

                 4.       It is the further case of the appellant that she has no

         idea as to whether her name was in the panel or not but she was

         appointed vide letter dt. 16.4.1988 by the competent appointing

         authority, nonetheless she had participated in the departmental

         proceeding, whereafter an enquiry report dated 06.04.2023 was

         submitted by the enquiry officer, finding only the Charge No. 1

         to have been proved, however the appellant was directed to

         submit her defence to the said enquiry report, which the

         appellant had submitted on 15.05.2023. Thereafter, the District

         Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna vide letter dated

         24.05.2023, while mentioning the reasons for coming to a

         conclusion that apart from allegation no.1, the allegation nos. 2

         and 3 have also stood proved in view of the fact that the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.281 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                            5/14




         appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher despite the fact

         that her name did not find place in the first merit list, had

         granted one more opportunity to the appellant to file a

         composite defence statement. The appellant had then filed a

         supplementary defence statement on 09.06.2023 but the District

         Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna vide order dated

         19.08.2023 held that the charges levelled against the appellant

         have stood proved and accordingly punishment of removal from

         service was inflicted upon the appellant. The appellant had

         preferred an appeal to the appellate authority, i.e. the Regional

         Deputy Direction Education, Patna Region, Patna, however the

         same had stood dismissed by an order dated 16.11.2023.

                 5.       The respondent had also filed a counter affidavit in

         the aforesaid writ petition, paragraph nos. 5 to 10 being

         relevant, are being reproduced herein below:-

                 “(5) That the present writ application has been filed by
                 the petitioner for setting aside the order of punishment
                 contained in memo no.7409 dated 19.08.2023 (i.e.
                 Annexure P/10) by which the disciplinary authority has
                 terminated the service of the petitioner. Further prayer of
                 the petitioner to set aside the order contained in memo
                 no.1379 dt. 16.11.2023 (i.e. Annexure P/12) by which the
                 Appellate Authority (RDDE, Patna) has also rejected the
                 appeal which had been filed by the petitioner before him.
                 (6) That from perusal of the writ application, it appears
                 that the instant petitioner has approached before this
Patna High Court L.P.A No.281 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                            6/14




                 Hon'ble Court for setting aside the order of punishment
                 which had been passed by the competent authority after
                 following the provision of CCA Rule. Thus, the order of
                 punishment is an outcome of quasi-judiciary procedure
                 hence until and unless the order of punishment is not
                 against the rule normally the Hon'ble Court restrain
                 themselves to interfere in such decision.
                 (7) That the answering deponent humbly submits that
                 after receipt of certain complain against the illegal and
                 forged appointment of the petitioner vide letter no.5052
                 dated 17.08.2021, the complainant had been informed to
                 satisfy the authority w.r.t. her allegation against the
                 instant petitioner. It is further relevant to submit here that
                 the complainant has not only raised this issue before the
                 DEO Office, Patna rather submitted this complain before
                 all superior authority of the Education Department. In
                 such a background of the matter preliminary enquiry had
                 taken place and it has been found that the complaint
                 bears substance.
                 (8) That in such background of the fact vide order
                 contained in memo no. 3811 dated 06.05.2022 the memo
                 of charge has been framed against the instant petitioner
                 and departmental proceeding has been instituted upon
                 her, in which the DPO (Secondary Education) had been
                 made enquiry officer and School Inspector, Mahendru
                 had been appointed as a presiding officer. That in view of
                 the aforesaid order of the answering deponent, the
                 enquiry had taken place in which the answering deponent
                 has been allowed enough opportunity to discard the
                 charge but she unable to establish her bonafide
                 appointment, accordingly after getting the enquiry report
                 vide letter no. 4272 dated 26.04.2023, she has been asked
                 second show cause on the enquiry report.
                 (9) That instant petitioner has submitted her reply on
                 09.06.2023 but failed to establish once again that she is
                 genuine appointees having her name in the recommended
                 panel in view of which she had been appointed. Finally,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.281 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                            7/14




                 when the instant petitioner has failed to establish the
                 genuineness of her appointment the answering deponent
                 after the getting the approval of the DEO, Patna (being a
                 disciplinary authority) has issued the order of punishment
                 vide memo no.7409 dated 19.08.2023 in the departmental
                 proceeding. This order is under challenge here, further
                 the instant petitioner had filed a service appeal before the
                 RDDE, Patna being the Appellate Authority of this cadre
                 and the RDDE, Patna has passed order contained in
                 memo no. 1379 dated 16.11.2023, which is also
                 challenged in the present proceeding.
                 (10) That the answering deponent further humbly submits
                 that in the departmental proceeding the answering
                 deponent has followed every provision of CCA Rule and
                 further in the departmental enquiry it has been found that
                 the appointment of the instant petitioner is forged and
                 illegal. In such view of the matter the order of punishment
                 has been passed by which the service of the instant
                 petitioner has been terminated thus, the order of
                 punishment is outcome of the quasi-judiciary process and
                 as such it does not deserve any interference.”

                 6.       The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned

         counsel for the respective parties, has been pleased to hold as follows:-

                 “5. Considering the aforesaid fact, by order dated
                 03.01.2024, the record of departmental proceedings was
                 called for by this Court. I have perused the record and
                 found that neither the name of the petitioner is available
                 in the panel nor the panel document was provided to him.
                 6. In such view of the matter, as the said panel document
                 was not provided to the petitioner, I set aside the enquiry
                 report, the termination letter dated 19.08.2023
                 (Annexure-P/10) and the appellate order dated
                 16.11.2023. The respondents are directed to conduct the
                 departmental proceedings afresh and conclude it within
                 six months in accordance with law.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.281 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                            8/14




                 7. The payment of any consequential benefit would
                 depend upon the result of the fresh departmental
                 proceedings.
                 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ
                 petition stands disposed of.”

                 7.       The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dinu

         Kumar has submitted that memo of charge, as contained in letter

         dated 06.05.2022, issued by the District Programme Officer

         (Establishment), Patna neither contains the name of the

         witnesses nor the list of documents have been enclosed, which

         is mandatory as per Rule 17(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2005, hence

         the entire departmental proceeding qua the appellant stands

         vitiated in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that after framing

         of charge and submission of the explanation by the appellant

         prosecution has not brought on record any oral much less any

         documentary evidence before the inquiry officer and the

         complainant, namely Smt. Gayatri Devi, Secretary, Tejaswai

         Fans Association Kurji Magadh Colony Sadakat Ashram, Patna

         was neither cited as oral witness nor produced as a witness

         during the course of the departmental proceeding, thus the

         present case is a case of no evidence.

                 8.       The learned counsel for the appellant has referred

         to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
Patna High Court L.P.A No.281 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                            9/14




         of Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2

         SCC 610 to contend that the Hon’ble Apex Court has prescribed

         the scope of judicial review qua the High Courts in matter of

         disciplinary proceedings and as far as the present case is

         concerned, the learned Single Judge, in view of the principles

         laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, ought not to have

         directed for conducting the departmental proceeding afresh. It is

         submitted that the present case is a case of no evidence, hence the

         learned Single Judge should not have directed for holding the

         departmental proceedings afresh as also should not have made

         payment of consequential benefits dependent upon the result of the

         fresh departmental proceedings. Paragraph nos.12 and 13 of the

         judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.

         Gunasekaran (supra) being relevant are reproduced herein below:-

                 “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
                 disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an
                 appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings,
                 reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry
                 officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the
                 disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the
                 Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary
                 proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a
                 second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise
                 of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
                 of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the
                 evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
                        (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
Patna High Court L.P.A No.281 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                            10/14




                        (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure
                        prescribed in that behalf;
                        (c) there is violation of the principles of natural
                        justice in conducting the proceedings;
                        (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from
                        reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
                        extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
                        (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be
                        influenced    by     irrelevant  or    extraneous
                        considerations;
                        (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
                        arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person
                        could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
                        (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed
                        to admit the admissible and material evidence;
                        (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
                        admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the
                        finding;
                        (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
                  13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
                  the High Court shall not:
                        (i) reappreciate the evidence;
                        (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in
                        case the same has been conducted in accordance
                        with law;
                        (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
                        (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
                        (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on
                        which findings can be based.
                        (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may
                        appear to be;
                        (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless
Patna High Court L.P.A No.281 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                            11/14




                        it shocks its conscience.”
                 9.       At this juncture, the learned counsel for the

         appellant has referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble

         Apex Court in the case of P. V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T. N.

         Housing Board, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 636, to contend that

         delay in initiating departmental enquiry against the delinquent after

         an inordinate delay is prejudicial to the delinquent and amounts to

         causing unbearable mental agony and distress, hence protracted

         disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should be

         avoided. Thus, it is submitted that the departmental proceeding in

         question, initiated at the fag-end of the career of the appellant, is fit

         to be quashed on the ground of delay in initiation of the same.

                 10.      Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents

         has submitted that allegations levelled against the appellant

         pertains to her forged appointment and she has failed to

         establish the genuineness of her appointment before the

         disciplinary authority, inasmuch as her name does not find place

         in the merit list/panel as such the charges framed against the

         appellant goes to the very root of the matter, i.e. regarding the

         appointment of the appellant being vitiated by fraud and forgery,

         thus being void ab initio. Nonetheless, it is submitted that since

         the respondents have been directed to conduct a de novo
Patna High Court L.P.A No.281 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                            12/14




         departmental proceeding, they are obliged to do so, however the

         facts remains that the appellant has now escaped the rigors of

         punishment of dismissal from service, since she has stood retired

         from her services with effect from the afternoon of 28.02.2025.

                 11.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

         and perused the materials on record, from which we find that the

         only relevant issue raised by the learned counsel for the

         appellant is regarding non-compliance of Rule 17(3) of the

         Rules, 2005, inasmuch as a bare perusal of memo of charge

         contained in letter dated 06.05.2022, admittedly does not

         contain either a list of such documents by which or a list of such

         witness by whom, articles of charge are proposed to be

         sustained. Thus, we had put a pertinent query to the learned

         counsel for the appellant that in case the respondents are

         directed to adhere to the requirements of Rule 17(3) and 17(4)

         of the Rules, 2005 while proceeding with a de novo

         departmental proceeding, whether he is agreeable to such

         modification in the impugned order dated 29.01.2025, to which

         the response of the learned counsel for the appellant is in the

         affirmative, however he submits that the time frame fixed for

         concluding the fresh departmental proceedings be reduced

         from six months to three months. The learned counsel for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.281 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                            13/14




         the respondents does not have any objection to the same.

                 12.      At this juncture, it would be relevant to quote Rule

         17(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2025 herein below:-

                  “17. Procedure for imposing major penalties:-
                  (1). xxx xxx        xxx
                  (2) xxx xxx         xxx
                  (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.
                  (4) The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be
                  delivered to the Government Servant a copy of the
                  articles of charge, such statement of the imputations of
                  misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and
                  witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to
                  be sustained and shall require the Government Servant to
                  submit, within such time as may be specified, a written
                  statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to
                  be heard in person.”

                 13.      Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

         case and with the express agreement of the learned counsel for
             Patna High Court L.P.A No.281 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
                                                         14/14




                      the appellant as also the learned counsel for the respondents, we

                      deem it fit and proper to modify the order dated 29.01.2025,

                      passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.17872 of 2023

                      to the following extent:-

                               (i) The disciplinary authority shall issue fresh memo of

                               charge as per the mandate of Rule 17(3) and (4) of the

                               Rules, 2005, forthwith;

                               (ii) The departmental proceeding to be conducted afresh

                               shall be concluded, in accordance with law within a

                               period of three months of receipt/production of a copy of

                               this judgment.

                              14.      Accordingly, the present letters patent appeal

                      stands disposed off with the aforesaid modification in the order

                      dated 29.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC

                      No.17872 of 2023.


                                            (Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)


                                                (Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
Kanchan/.-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          28.01.2026
Transmission Date