Patna High Court
Rambachan ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the competent authority correctly distinguished the appellant’s case from Jawahar Kumar Singh, the Single Judge’s order was reasoned and not perverse, and thus the intra‑court appeal must be dismissed.
Summary
The appellant, a police officer, was found intoxicated and faced departmental punishment after a breath‑analyser test. He challenged the punishment, arguing that the competent authority failed to apply the Supreme Court’s direction to compare his case with Jawahar Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar. The authority conducted a comparative analysis, concluded the cases were factually distinct, and upheld a severe penalty. The Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, finding no infirmity in the authority’s order. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined whether the Single Judge’s factual findings were perverse and whether the authority complied with the earlier direction. Relying on established principles governing intra‑court (Letters Patent) appeals, the Court held that the findings were reasoned and not perverse, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Did the competent authority comply with the Supreme Court’s direction to compare the appellant’s case with Jawahar Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar?
- Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Single Judge are perverse or unsupported by evidence, warranting interference in an intra‑court appeal.
- Whether the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal can be condoned.
Subjects
- Police disciplinary action
- Intoxication
- Departmental punishment
- Letters Patent appeal
- Intra‑court appeal
- Comparative analysis
- Perverse finding
- Motor Vehicles Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.457 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1746 of 2022
======================================================
Rambachan Chaudhary, aged about 37 years, Gender-Male, Son of Mantu
Chaudhary, resident of Village- Rampur, Ward No. 03, P.S.- Sonhan, District-
Kaimur (Bhabua).
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Commissioner, Bihar.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Koshi Region, Saharsa, Bihar.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koshi Region, Saharsa, Bihar.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Supaul, Bihar.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Supaul, Bihar
7. The Enquiry Officer-Cum- Sub Divisional Police Officer, Birpur, Supaul,
Bihar.
8. The S.H.O. Trieveniganj Police Station, Supaul, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Dr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, A.C. to A.A.G.-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
4 30-03-2026 Upon perusal of the previous orders, it appears that in
the order dated 04.09.2025, “order no. 3” has wrongly been
recorded in place of “order no. 2”. Similarly, in the order dated
09.10.2025, “order no. 4” has been wrongly recorded in place of
“order no. 3”.
2. The aforesaid errors being clerical/typographical in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.457 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
2/11
nature, require correction. Accordingly, it is directed that in the
order dated 04.09.2025, “order no. 2” shall be read in place of
“order no. 3”, and in the order dated 09.10.2025, “order no. 3”
shall be read in place of “order no. 4”.
3. The orders dated 04.09.2025 and 09.10.2025 is
modified to the limited extent indicated hereinabove.
Re.: I.A. No. 01 of 2023:
4. The aforesaid Interlocutory Application has been
filed on behalf of the appellant for condoning the delay in filing
the present Letters Patent Appeal i.e., L.P.A. No. 457 of 2023.
5. For the reasons mentioned in the present
Interlocutory Application, delay in filing the present Letters
Patent Appeal i.e., L.P.A. No. 457 of 2023, is condoned and I.A.
No. 01 of 2023 is allowed.
Re.: L.P.A. No. 457 of 2023:
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondents.
7. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of Patna High Court Rules,
against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1746 of 2022, whereby the
writ application preferred by the appellant came to be dismissed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.457 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
3/11
8. The brief facts of the present case are that the
appellant, a police personnel posted in Supaul district, was
alleged to have been found in an intoxicated condition. A breath
analyser test of the appellant was conducted which indicated
presence of alcohol, pursuant to which, Triveniganj P.S. Case
No. 236 of 2019 was instituted against him. Further
departmental proceedings were also initiated against the
petitioner vide Supaul Ziladesh No. 488/2020, in which he was
awarded a major punishment.
9. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the present
matter represents the second round of litigation at the instance of
the appellant. In the first round, the appellant had approached
this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5578 of 2021, which was disposed of
by order dated 25.03.2021. The following observation was made
by the learned Writ Court:
“Without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the aforesaid claim of the petitioner,
the present writ application is disposed off
with a direction to the respondents to
scrutinize the fact and if it is found that the
fact of this case is similar to that of C.W.J.C.
No. 13549 of 2018 (Jawahar Kumar Singh
Versus State of Bihar & Ors), same treatment
shall be extended to the petitioner by the
respondents within a maximum period of two
Patna High Court L.P.A No.457 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
4/11
months from the date of receipt/production of
a copy of this order.”
10. Thus, the matter was remitted to the competent
authority for a limited purpose, namely, to examine whether the
case of the appellant was similar to that of Jawahar Kumar
Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors (C.W.J.C. No. 13549 of 2018)
and to extend similar treatment only if such similarity existed.
11. In compliance thereof, the competent authority
reconsidered the matter and passed a reasoned order dated
20.06.2021 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition). The authority,
upon a comparative assessment of the facts, recorded the
following findings:
”Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case no. 13549/2018
जवाहर कुमार ससिंह बनाम राज्य सिंरकार एवं अन्य तथा Civil
Writ Jurisdiction Case no. 5578/2021 रामबचन चौधरी
बननाम बबहार सिंरकार एवं अन्य मे माननीय उच न्यायालय द्वारा
पाररत आदेश का अवलोकन बकया गया। अवलोकनोपरांत
दोनो मामला एक जैसिंा नही है। जो भभिन्न्तना तुलनात्मक प्रकाश
मे आया है, वे बनम्न है:-
1. बरार्खास्त ससिंपाही-537 रामबचन चौधरी कतर्खा व्यहीन एवं
अच्छे पुललसिं कमर नही है।
2. ये बत्रिवेणीगंज थाना कांड सिंं0-236/19 के प्राथबमकी
नामजद अभभियुक है। इनके बवरुद यह कांड ब्रेथ एनालाईजर
ररपोरर्खा एवं चचबकत्सिंीय ररपारर्खा के अवलोकनोपरांत धारा-
37(बी) बबहार मद बनषेध एवं उत्पाद अचधबनयम 2016 के
अंतगर्खा त सिंत्य पाया गया है। इसिं कांड मे अनुसिंंधानोपरांत
आरोप पत्रि सिंं०-391/19, बदनांक-20.10.19 सिंमरपत बकया
गया है। जो माननीय न्यायालय मे बवचाराधीन है।
3. ये सिंुपौल थाना के गाडर्खा मे प्रचतबनयुक थे, जबबक
Patna High Court L.P.A No.457 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
5/11
घरनास्थल सिंुपौल थाना सिंे लगभिग 30 बक०मी० बत्रिवेणीगंज
थाना क्षेत्रि है। स्पष है बक ऐसिंा कृत्य एक अनुशासिंनहीन पुललसिं
कमर ही करेगा। घरनास्थल तक जाने के ललए अपचारी द्वारा
बकसिंी तरह का अनुमचत नही ललया गया था।
4. मद बनषेध अचधबनयम-2016 का अनुपालन करना प्रत्येक
पुललसिं कमर का दाचयत्व है। प्रत्येक पुललसिं कमर ने इसिंके ललए
शपथ भिी ललया है। इसिं प्रकार न केवल अपचारी ने कानून का
उलंघन बकया है बललक शपथ एवं कतर्खा व्य का भिी उलंघन बकया
है।
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case no. 13549/2018
जवाहर कुमार ससिंह बनाम राज्य सिंरकार एवं अन्य तथा Civil
Writ Jurisdiction Case no. 5578/2021 रामबचन चौधरी
बनाम बबहार सिंरकार एवं अन्य मे माननीय उच न्यायालय द्वारा
पाररत आदेश का मामला एक जैसिंा नही है। माननीय उच
न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत आदेश का अनुपालन मे बरार्खास्त
ससिंपाही-537 रामबचन चौधरी को पुनः सिंेवा मे ललया जाना
श्रेयष्कर प्रतीत नही होता है। "
12. The aforesaid order dated 20.06.2021 was
subsequently challenged by the appellant in CW.J.C. No. 1746
of 2022, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single
Judge vide order dated 02.12.2022.
13. While adjudicating the writ petition, the learned
Single Judge examined whether the authority had complied with
the directions issued in the earlier round of litigation and
whether the decision-making process suffered from any
infirmity. In this context, the learned Writ Court observed as
follows:
“5. It is, thus, apparent that the matter was
remitted for consideration on the ground of
quantum of punishment and specifically with
Patna High Court L.P.A No.457 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
6/11
reference to the prior conduct of the
petitioner whether he has been charged of
any such offence and other such issues.
Having considered the issue of quantum of
punishment being disproportionate, the
Superintendent of Police, Supaul has again
passed an order on 20-06-2021, wherein, he
has considered the fact that the petitioner has
earlier also been found to be guilty of certain
lapses which have been taken note of.
Paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the order, which
reads as follows:-
"3 बक्सिंर सजला मे बुबनयादी प्रभशक्षण सिंमाबप
पश्चात् बदनांक-22.12.14 को 05 (पाँच) बदनो का अनुमचत
अवकाश पैतृक सजला सिंुपौल मे योगदान करने हेतु आदेश पत्रि
बनगर्खा त बकया गया था। अवकाश उपभिोग कर बदनांक
28.12.2014 को योगदान पुललसिं केन्द्र सिंुपौल मे करना था,
परन्तु बदनांक -02.01.2015 के अपराहण मे 06 (छः) बदन
बपछड कर बकए । उक बरती गयी लापरवाही के ललए "काम
नही तो वेतन नही " के आधार पर 06 (छः) बदनो का वेतन
भित्ता जप करते हुए उक अवचध को असिंाधारण अवकाश मे
सिंमायोसजत बकया गया है। सिंुपौल सजलादेश सिं०-37/2015 है।
4. थानाध्यक्ष, सिंुपौल का ज्ञापांक 4064 बदनांक-
14.08.2019 के आलोक मे गाडर्खा प्रभिारी शोबहत यादव द्वारा
सिंमरपत आवेदन मे उल्लेर बकये है बक ससिंपाही -537 रामबचन
चौधरी बदनांक-13.08.2019 सिंे फरार है। तथा इनका बराबर
का ये रवैया है। जो इनके कतर्खा व्यहीनता / स्वेच्छा चररत्रि , एक
अच्छे पुललसिं कमर नही होने का आरोप है । गाडर्खा सिंे फरार
रहने के आरोप मे बदनांक-13.08.2019 के प्रभिाव सिंे सिंामान्य
जीवन यापन भित्ता पर बनलंबबत करते हुए उनके बवरूद
Patna High Court L.P.A No.457 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
7/11
बवभिागीय कायर्खा वाही प्रारंभि बकया गया है तथा बनलंबन अवचध मे
इनका मुख्यालय पुललसिं केन्द्र सिंुपौल होगे। सिंुपौल सजलादेश
सिंं०-1009/2019 (बव०जाचसिं०- 83/19 प्रारम्भि ) है । भिबवष्य
मे अपचारी अपना सिंेवा मे दोबारा आते है तो इसिं बवभिागीय
कायर्खा वाही को पुन सिंंचाललत कर बनणर्खा य ललया जाएगा। "
14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
authority had not complied with the direction issued by the
learned Writ Court, and did not consider the case of Jawahar
Kumar Singh (supra), while passing the order dated
20.06.2021. Learned counsel further submits that certain
additional findings were added in the said order which were not
relevant.
15. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
learned Single Judge had rightly passed the impugned order,
after considering relevant facts and material on record. As such,
the order of the learned Single Judge warrants no interference.
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident
that pursuant to the direction issued in the earlier round of
litigation, the competent authority has reconsidered the case of
the appellant and has passed a detailed and reasoned order dated
20.06.2021.
17. From the said order, it transpires that the authority
Patna High Court L.P.A No.457 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
8/11
has undertaken a comparative analysis of the case of the
appellant with that of Jawahar Kumar Singh (supra) and has
recorded specific findings to the effect that the two cases are
distinguishable on facts. The authority has also taken into
consideration the conduct of the appellant, including his
involvement in a criminal case and prior instances of
indiscipline, while arriving at its conclusion. The conduct of the
appellant would be a relevant consideration for any
departmental proceeding against him.
18. It further appears that the learned Single Judge,
while examining the challenge to the aforesaid order, has taken
note of the limited scope of remand and has confined the
scrutiny to whether the authority had complied with the
directions issued by this Court and whether the decision-making
process suffered from any infirmity. Upon such consideration,
the learned Single Judge found that the authority had duly
applied its mind and had passed a reasoned order.
19. In view of the aforesaid, this Court proceeds to
examine the matter within the limited scope of interference
available in an intra-court appeal.
20. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction
under Letters Patent, this Court does not sit as a court of appeal
Patna High Court L.P.A No.457 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
9/11
over findings of fact unless the same are shown to be perverse or
based on no evidence. At this juncture, it is pertinent to take note
of the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while
deciding the case of Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan
reported in (2005) 6 SCC 243, wherein following observation
was made:
“52. It may be, as has been held in Asha
Devi [(1974) 2 SCC 492] that the power of the
appellate court in intra-court appeal is not exactly
the same as contained in Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure but it is also well known that
entertainment of a letters patent appeal is
discretionary and normally the Division Bench
would not, unless there exist cogent reasons, differ
from a finding of fact arrived at by the learned
Single Judge. Even as noticed hereinbefore, a court
of first appeal which is the final court of appeal on
fact may have to exercise some amount of
restraint.”
21. It is also relevant to take note of the Judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra & Co. (P) Ltd. v.
Workmen reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340, wherein the following
Patna High Court L.P.A No.457 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
10/11
observation was made:
“5. …..Be that as it may, in an intra-court
appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate
Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the
Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the
same. Merely because another view or a better view
is possible, there should be no interference with or
disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge,
unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on
relief.”
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and applying
the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the competent authority
has passed a reasoned and well-considered order based on
relevant materials, and has rightly distinguished the case of the
appellant from that of Jawahar Kumar Singh (supra). The
learned Single Judge has, in turn, correctly appreciated these
aspects and has justifiably declined to interfere.
23. In view thereof, this Court finds no perversity,
illegality, or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge warranting interference in the present intra-court appeal.
24. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands
Patna High Court L.P.A No.457 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
11/11
dismissed.
25. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
U.K./- (Shailendra Singh, J)
U T
Checking your session…