Patna High Court
Sohan PrasadversusThe State of Bihar through Principal Secretary,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The dismissal of the contractual employee was lawful as the enquiry complied with natural justice and was not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Summary
The appellant, a contractual Statistical Assistant, challenged his dismissal after an enquiry into alleged irregularities in Anganwadi appointments. He claimed the enquiry violated natural justice and was biased, and that a 2020 circular guaranteed continuation of service until age 60. The authorities conducted a four‑member enquiry, gave him an opportunity to reply to show‑cause notices, and recommended his removal, which was affirmed by the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner. The Single Judge found that procedural safeguards were observed and the allegations substantiated, rejecting the appellant's claim of perversity. On appeal, the High Court reiterated that the enquiry complied with natural justice, the order was not arbitrary or unreasonable, and limited scope of judicial review precludes interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a contractual employee is entitled to the same procedural safeguards and natural justice as a regular employee before dismissal.
- Whether the enquiry conducted into alleged corruption was free from bias and complied with statutory requirements.
- Whether the dismissal order was arbitrary, unreasonable, or mala fide, warranting judicial intervention.
- Scope of judicial review in a Letters Patent Appeal concerning service termination of contractual staff.
Subjects
- contractual employee
- dismissal
- show-cause notice
- natural justice
- judicial review
- service termination
- corruption allegations
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.286 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7951 of 2023
======================================================
Sohan Prasad Son of Khenhar Sah Resident of Village - Malkauli, Police
Station - Bagaha (Patkhauli), District- West Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran.
4. The District Programme Officer, Integrated Child Development Skim,
Bettiah, West Champaran.
5. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Bettiah, West Champaran.
6. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bagaha, West Champaran.
7. The Child Development Project Officer, Bagaha- 1, West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shahbaj Alam, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, G.A.-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 16-03-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Sohan
Prasad challenging the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7951 of 2023, whereby the
writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant was appointed as a Statistical
Assistant on 09.12.2011 and was subsequently posted at Sikta
Block in the office of the C.D.P.O. on 20.06.2012. The
appointment of the appellant was purely on a contractual basis
for a period of one year. However, the contractual engagement
was extended from time to time, and the appellant continued to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.286 of 2025 dt.16-03-2026
2/8
discharge his duties until he was dismissed by the order dated
19.07.2021.
3. It is the case of the appellant that, as per the
Circular dated 09.09.2020 issued by the Social Welfare
Department, Government of Bihar, contractual employees were
to continue in service until they attained the age of 60 years.
However, while the appellant was discharging his
duty, he received a show-cause notice dated 05.09.2019, issued
by the C.D.P.O., Bagaha-I, alleging certain irregularities in the
appointment of Anganwadi Sevika/Sahayika, and the appellant
was asked to submit his reply. It is further stated that the
appellant was asked by the office to hand over charge to one
Shambhu Pandey, Clerk. Subsequently, the appellant received
another show-cause notice dated 28.09.2019, to which he
submitted his reply.
According to the appellant, the enquiry conducted
on the basis of which punishment was imposed was not in
accordance with law, and the replies submitted by him to the
show-cause notices were not properly considered. Ultimately,
the appellant was dismissed from service with effect from
19.07.2021, and the said order was later on confirmed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur, vide order dated
Patna High Court L.P.A No.286 of 2025 dt.16-03-2026
3/8
10.04.2023.
4. After issuance of notice, Respondent Nos. 3 to 7
filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition, wherein it has been
stated that a written complaint was filed by one Brij Nandan
Prasad before the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah.
In the said complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner, along
with one Anita Kumari, were indulged in taking bribes/illegal
gratification from candidates for the selection of Anganwadi
Sevika/Sahayika.
Upon receipt of the complaint, the District
Magistrate, West Champaran, directed for an enquiry to be
conducted into such allegations. In compliance with the said
direction, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bagaha constituted a four-
member committee of officers to enquire into the allegations
levelled against the petitioner.
After conclusion of the enquiry, the committee
submitted its enquiry report, with clear finding against the
petitioner along with a recommendation for his removal from
service. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the District
Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah issued a show-cause
notice to the petitioner with reference to the findings recorded in
the enquiry report.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.286 of 2025 dt.16-03-2026
4/8
Since the petitioner did not submit his show-cause
reply within the stipulated time, another letter was issued
directing him to file his reply. Subsequently, the petitioner
submitted his show-cause reply.
After considering the enquiry report submitted by
the S.D.O., Bagaha-I, as well as taking note of the serious
allegations levelled against the petitioner, the District
Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah came to the conclusion
that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of his
contractual appointment. Accordingly, the contractual
engagement of the petitioner was cancelled with effect from the
date of issuance of the letter dated 19.07.2021.
5. The order passed by the District Magistrate, West
Champaran was also affirmed by the Commissioner, Tirhut
Division, Muzaffarpur in Service Appeal No. 62 of 2021.
6. The petitioner thereafter filed a rejoinder affidavit
to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 3 to 7, wherein
it was stated that the enquiry conducted at the instance of the
District Magistrate was not proper and that the petitioner was
not given an adequate opportunity to produce evidence in his
defence. It was further contended that the impugned order
suffers from non-application of mind.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.286 of 2025 dt.16-03-2026
5/8
7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the
parties, held that the petitioner had been accorded adequate
opportunity of hearing, notwithstanding the fact that he was a
contractual employee. The learned Single Judge further
observed that the irregularities and allegations of corruption
against the petitioner were found to be proved in the enquiry.
Accordingly, the learned Single Judge did not find any
irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the authorities
removing the petitioner from contractual service.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant first submitted
that the enquiry report suffers from perversity, on the ground
that the complainant himself acted as the enquiry officer.
However, when a query was put to the learned counsel as to
whether such a stand had been taken in the writ petition, the
answer was in the negative. Moreover, no material has been
produced before us to show that the complainant, Brij Nandan
Prasad, had acted as the enquiry officer. In fact, from the
pleadings on record, it appears that Brij Nandan Prasad was
merely the complainant and that the enquiry was conducted by a
four-member enquiry committee. Therefore, the said contention
is not acceptable.
9. The second contention raised by the learned
Patna High Court L.P.A No.286 of 2025 dt.16-03-2026
6/8
counsel for the appellant relates to the alleged violation of the
principles of natural justice during the course of the enquiry.
However, upon perusal of the writ petition as well as the counter
affidavit, we find that the four-member committee constituted
by the S.D.O., Bagaha-I had provided the petitioner an
opportunity to submit his reply; whereupon the enquiry report
was submitted. Thereafter the petitioner was again given an
opportunity to submit his show-cause reply. Considering that the
petitioner was a contractual employee, the minimum
requirements of natural justice appear to have been duly
followed.
10. It would be pertinent to observe that a writ court
is entitled to judicially review the action and determine whether
there was any illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness
or irrationality that would vitiate the action, no matter the action
is in the realm of contract. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while
emphasizing the aforesaid proposition in the case of Gridco Ltd.
& Anr. -Vrs.- Sadananda Doloi & Ors., reported in (2011) 15
SCC 16, has categorically observed that the judicial review
cannot extend to the Court acting as an appellate authority
sitting in judgment over the decision. The Court cannot sit in the
armchair of the Administrator to decide whether a more
Patna High Court L.P.A No.286 of 2025 dt.16-03-2026
7/8
reasonable decision or course of action could have been taken in
the circumstances. So long as the action taken by the authority is
not shown to be vitiated by the infirmities referred to above and
so long as the action is not demonstrably in outrageous defiance
of logic, the writ court would do well to respect the decision
under challenge.
11. The legal position, as enunciated by the highest
Court of the land, is that if the action of the authorities is mala
fide, arbitrary, irrational, disproportionate, or unreasonable, the
Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, can
interfere with the actions of the respondent authorities, provided
that such a plea on the aforesaid grounds is taken at the first
instance.
12. What emerges from the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court is that if an order is based on
imputations and allegations, it is termed as stigmatic and
punitive. In such circumstances, the services of an employee,
even on a contractual basis, cannot be dispensed with without
affording him an opportunity to defend himself against the
accusations/allegations through a duly conducted enquiry.
13. In the present case, the petitioner was subjected
to an enquiry and was given an appropriate opportunity of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.286 of 2025 dt.16-03-2026
8/8
hearing. However, upon being dissatisfied with the show cause
reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order of
termination came to be passed.
14. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from
any perversity or unreasonableness. Further, keeping in mind the
limited scope of interference in a Letters Patent Appeal, we are
not inclined to interfere with the same.
15. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
Neha/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 23.03.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…