Patna High Court
Vijay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The Court set aside the impugned order as perverse and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on its merits.
Summary
The appellant, a police Sub‑Divisional Officer, challenged a departmental punishment of censure and the withholding of two salary increments imposed by the Home (Police) Department of Bihar. He alleged that the disciplinary enquiry was based on erroneous data, that his explanations and performance records were ignored, and that the enquiry authority acted arbitrarily and in violation of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The Single Judge dismissed the writ, merely noting that the appellant had already received two increments and would be eligible for promotion after the penalty period. On appeal, the Chief Justice held that the impugned order was perverse, that the disciplinary findings were unsupported by evidence, and that the Single Judge should have examined the merits. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed, the order set aside, and the matter remitted to the Single Judge for fresh adjudication.
Issues considered
- Whether the punishment of censure and withholding of two increments imposed on the appellant is legally sustainable.
- Whether the disciplinary authority's findings are perverse, arbitrary, or based on no evidence, warranting a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the Single Judge erred by deciding the case solely on the fact that the appellant had already received two increments without examining the merits.
- Whether the procedural requirements under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 were complied with in the departmental enquiry.
Subjects
- departmental disciplinary action
- censure
- withholding increments
- perverse finding
- certiorari
- Bihar CCA Rules 2005
- police service
- procedural fairness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.65 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7533 of 2023
======================================================
Vijay Kumar Son of Shubhuk Lal Yadav Resident of Village-Adavari,
Maheshkhut, Chautham, P.S.-Chautham, District-Khagaria, PIN-851213.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Police
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga.
8. The Inspector General of Police, Modernization, Bihar, Patna-cum-Enquiry
Authority.
9. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Advocate
Mr. Monis Ahmod, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 26-02-2026
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
2/16
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
appellant Vijay Kumar, who was the petitioner in the writ
petition, challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7533 of 2023.
2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the appellant
seeking the following relief:
“For issuance of a Writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the Resolution as contained
in Memo No. 10819 dated 26.10.2022 issued
under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Home
(Police) Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna whereby and where under the
punishment of censure (Nindan) (w.e.f.
allegation year) and withholding the two
increments with non cumulative effect has been
inflicted upon the petitioner and further for
quashing the resolution as contained in Memo
No.3253 dated 7.3.2023 issued under the
signature of same very officer i.e., Deputy
Secretary, Home Police Department, Bihar,
Patna whereby and where under departmental
appeal/ review petition of the petitioner has
been rejected on erroneous grounds as well as
on wrong facts which has been communicated
to the Commandant, Bihar Special Armed
Police (hereinafter referred as BSAP)
Headquarter. Patna vide letter no.794 dated
16.3.2023 and subsequently same has been
communicated to the petitioner by the
Commandant, BSAP-9, Jamalpur vide memo
no.37 dated 22.03.2023 and further directing
the respondent authorities to issue integrity
certificate of the petitioner and further for
issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
3/16
order/orders it may deem fit and proper by this
Hon'ble Court.”
3. It is the case of the petitioner that vide Letter No. 862
dated 28.05.2019, Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna
asked the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga
Range, Darbhanga to submit Performance Report of the
S.D.P.Os. of the said range and pursuant thereto, the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range vide Memo No.
1201 dated 28.05.2019 asked the Superintendent of Police,
Samastipur to submit reports regarding performance of
S.D.P.Os. of Samastipur District.
From the report of the Superintendent of Police,
Samastipur, it revealed that the total number of Special Reported
Cases (for brevity ‘S.R. Case’) on the date of joining of the
petitioner was ‘101’ and showed the increasing of pendency as
‘135’, which was corrected by the Superintendent of Police,
Samastipur as prosecution witnesses during conduction of the
departmental enquiry and disclosed therein that 120 SR cases
were pending on the date of joining of the petitioner which
became ‘133’, meaning thereby, only thirteen cases were
increased and the petitioner had inspected four posts out of five
posts in his jurisdiction.
It is the further case of the petitioner that said report
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
4/16
of the S.P., Samastipur was sent to the Inspector General of
Police, Darbhanga Zone, Darbhanga upon which vide Letter No.
2621 dated 17.06.2019, S.P., Samastipur was asked to identify
worst performers S.D.P.O. of Samastipur and submit a report
against them. In pursuance of the said order of the I.G., the
appellant was asked to submit his defence by the S.P.,
Samastipur vide Memo No. 4660 dated 22.06.2019, but without
awaiting for the reply of the petitioner, the S.P., Samastipur sent
report to D.I.G., Darbhanga vide Letter No.4673 dated
23.06.2019 i.e. on next day giving wrong fact which would be
evident from the statement of cited witness. It has been
mentioned in the report of S.P., Samastipur that the petitioner
was asked to submit his explanation but no such explanation
was received from him and subsequently same was sent to the.
I.G., Darbhanga by the D.I.G., Darbhanga.
In compliance of the said order of I.G., Darbhanga
and subsequent order of S.P, Samastipur regarding submission
of explanation, the petitioner submitted his explanation in which
he had mentioned correct data of disposal of cases, besides he
also specifically pointed out that he had done supervision of
eight cases of other Sub-Division pursuant to order of the S.P.
with detail and also mentioned therein that he had submitted that
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
5/16
he had sent forty five proposals under CCA-03 and two
proposals under CCA-12, besides he had also inspected four
posts out of five posts which was more than the other S.D.P.Os.
It is the further case of the petitioner that without
considering and without reverting the points/data submitted by
him, the I.G., Darbhanga made recommendation for initiation of
departmental action against him to the Police Headquarter and
subsequently, same was sent to the Home (Police) Department,
Bihar, Patna.
It is further case of the petitioner that without
considering the fact, the Home (Police) department vides Memo
No.6551 dated 09.08.2019 asked the petitioner to submit his
defence. The petitioner submitted his defence on 13.09.2019
before the Home (Police) Department and reiterated the same as
he had submitted before the 1.G., Darbhanga, however, without
considering the defence of the petitioner, the Home (Police)
Department vide resolution as contained in Memo No.676 dated
21.01.2020 declared the said reply to be unsatisfactory and
started the departmental proceeding, which was communicated
to the petitioner by the Police Headquarter vide Memo No.388
dated 06.02.2020.
It is the further case of the petitioner that during the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
6/16
departmental proceeding, the petitioner submitted his
preliminary defence on 03.03.2021 and thereafter
supplementary defence. He had given data of supervision which
was done by him, apart from that he had also given data of
supervision in other Sub-Division which was done by him in
pursuance of order of the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur
and such fact would be evident from explanation dated
24.08.2021.
It is the further case of the petitioner that after
conclusion of enquiry, the Enquiry Authority -cum- Inspector
General of Police (Modernization) Bihar, Patna submitted
enquiry report before the Special Secretary, Home (Police),
Department, Bihar, Patna vide Letter No. 16 dated 17.03.2022
holding the petitioner guilty of charge nos. 1 and 2 out of seven
charges, upon which petitioner was asked to submit his defence
by the Home (Police) Department, Bihar, Patna. The Enquiry
Authority had compiled all documents in her enquiry report viz.
article of charges, preliminary explanation of the petitioner
correspondent to the witnesses as well as the Presenting Officer
and also reply of Presenting Officer and the last defence of the
appellant etc. Pursuant to that, the petitioner submitted his
defence vide his office Letter No.1828 dated 04.06.2022 before
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
7/16
the Home Department in which he had categorically highlighted
the statement of the S.P., Samastipur recorded in course of
conducting departmental enquiry, besides other relevant and
correct facts supported by documentary evidence.
It is the further case of the petitioner that without
considering the defence of the petitioner as well as material on
record, resolution as contained in Memo No.10819 dated
26.10.2022 was issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary,
Home (Police) Department, whereby and whereunder
punishment of censure with effect from allegation year and
withholding of two increments of salary has been inflicted upon
him.
4. Being aggrieved with the punishment order, the
petitioner preferred departmental appeal/review petition before
the Government, but the same was rejected in a cryptic manner
by the same very officer vide resolution as contained in Memo
No.3253 dated 07.03.2023 which was communicated through
the Commandant, BSAP-9 vide Memo No.37 dated 22.03.2023
and for fulfilling empty formality, only mentioned therein that
approval has been taken from the competent authority on the
said order.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that altogether three
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
8/16
witnesses were cited by the prosecution in the departmental
proceeding, out of them one witness, who happened to be
Superintendent of Police was the main witness though the
Superintendent of Police namely Mr. Vikash Verman who made
the complaint and submitted review report to the D.I.G.,
Darbhanga was not made a witness rather successor
Superintendent of Police, namely Mr. Manaw Singh Dhillo was
examined as witness who negated the charges levelled against
the petitioner despite the Enquiry Authority held the petitioner
guilty of two charges, which was evidently based upon wrong
data. There was non-consideration of the explanation of the
petitioner and the finding of the Enquiry Officer was only based
upon the reply of the Presenting Officer, ignoring the
documentary evidence, and thus the enquiry report itself is
perverse.
It is the further case of the petitioner that the S.P.,
Samastipur namely Mr. Vikash Verman submitted a report to the
D.I.G., Darbhanga vide his Letter No.4673 dated 23.06.2019
which was made Exhibit No.2 giving wrong data as he had
mentioned in his report that no proposal for taking action
against the criminal under Crime Control Act was submitted by
the petitioner and the inspection report was received only of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
9/16
four posts out of five posts. He had further mentioned in his
report that explanation of the petitioner had not been received
whereas, conversely he had never asked any explanation from
the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the article of charges
were framed on the basis of wrong data and facts and since the
explanation of the appellant was not considered, even not
perused by the authority who prepared article of charge, the
charge memo prima facie appears to be perverse.
According to the petitioner, the S.P., Samastipur
submitted comparative chart of performance of four S.D.P.Os.,
including the petitioner and on perusal of the same, it would
appear that though Sri Pritish Kumar was found to be most
worst performer as per work done by him, but departmental
proceeding was initiated only against the petitioner and one
Arun Kumar Dubey whose period was very less than all others,
however, no proceeding was initiated against Pritish Kumar and
Kundan Kumar, and thus such action of the I.G., Darbhanga
appeared to be mala fide and his report was based upon pick &
choose method.
It is the case of the petitioner that the Disciplinary
Authority had not taken proper account of the petitioner’s
performance during the period under review i.e from 02.05.2018
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
10/16
to 01.05.2019, whereas the petitioner has categorically
mentioned the details of supervision which would show that the
petitioner had not only done supervision of his Sub-Divisional
territory, but also supervised the case in other Sub-Division of
the district pursuant to the order of S.P., but such facts were
ignored by the respondent authorities, which would be evident
from the explanation of the petitioner which is part of the
enquiry report. Apparent discriminatory action of the
disciplinary authority got transpired from the fact that vide
Letter No. 2438 dated 05.06.2019 issued by the Inspector
General of Police, Darbhanga Zone, Darbhanga, by which so-
called eight worst performer S.D.P.Os. were identified in
Darbhanga Zone, but departmental proceeding was initiated
only against four officers including the petitioner and no
proceeding was initiated against the remaining four S.D.P.Os.
From perusal of statement of S.P., Samastipur, who was cited as
a witness, though he was not the author of report, it would be
evident that petitioner was the best performer and the reason of
marginal increment in pendency of cases was the
commencement of general election and deployment of police
officer in election duty and though there was no fault on the part
of the petitioner; proceeding was initiated against him ignoring
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
11/16
the compelling circumstances, despite the correct data placed by
the petitioner with supportive evidence.
According to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has a
duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the
materials brought on record by the parties. The purported
evidence collected during course of investigation by the Enquiry
Officer by itself could not be treated as evidence in the
disciplinary proceeding. Further, the Police Headquarter
(Personnel and Welfare Wing), Bihar, Patna issued specific
mandatory guideline with respect to conduction of departmental
proceeding, which were not followed by the enquiry authority as
well as the disciplinary authority and the same had also been
overlooked by the appellate authority as well.
6. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 so also Respondent No.9.
7. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has
been pleased to take note of the submissions of the parties, but
even though the petitioner challenged the imposition of the
minor penalty of censure and withholding of two increments, no
finding was given on the same. However, taking into account
the submission of the learned counsel for the State and the
provision of Rule 14 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, it has been
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
12/16
observed as follows:
“7. In view of the fact that petitioner has suffered
already two increments, he becomes entitled for
being promoted after expiry of the penalty and the
adverse effect will amount to lose its force making
the petitioner entitled for being considered for
promotion by the Departmental Promotion
Committee (DPC) soon so that the petitioner may
not further demoralize, as junior to him have been
promoted.”
8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the writ
petition, the appellant had taken various grounds as to how the
punishment of the imposition of minor penalty of censure and
withholding of two increments are not sustainable in the eyes of
law, but the learned Single Judge without adjudicating the same
on the basis of available materials on record, held that since the
appellant had suffered with two increments, he became entitled
for being promoted after the expiry of the penalty, although the
civil consequences and stigma still remains. He placed reliance
on the ratio laid down in the case of Union of India & Ors.
-Vrs.- P. Gunashekhran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610,
wherein it was held that the High Court, in exercise of its
powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India can
see whether the conclusions, on the very face of it is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever
have arrived at such conclusion and that finding of fact is based
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
13/16
on no evidence.
It is argued that even though the re-appreciation of
evidence is not permissible but the learned Single Judge should
have appreciated the points raised that the findings of the
disciplinary authority on charges nos. 1 and 2 are wholly
arbitrary and based on no evidence.
He further placed reliance in the case of United
Bank of India -Vrs.- Biswanath Bhattacharjee, reported in
(2022) 13 SCC 329, wherein the Hon’ble Court has been
pleased to hold in Paragraph no.21 that if the finding of the
disciplinary authority is beyond record i.e. no evidence or based
on irrelevant or extraneous factors or by ignoring material
evidence, some amount of scrutiny is necessary. A finding of no
evidence or perversity cannot be rendered sans such basic
scrutiny of the materials and the findings of the disciplinary
authority.
The learned counsel for the appellant further argued
that even though out of seven charges framed against the
appellant, two charges were stated to have been proved, but the
materials available on record justifies that the disciplinary
authority had erred in holding that the two charges had been
proved and therefore, there was perversity in the finding of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
14/16
disciplinary authority imposing the minor punishment. It is
further argued that the appellant has been seriously prejudiced,
inasmuch as even though he had challenged the imposition of
such penalty on merits, but the same was not considered.
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State,
however, supports the impugned order.
10. After going through the impugned order and hearing
the learned counsel for the respective parties and going through
the pleadings, we are of the humble view that since specific
challenges were made to quash the imposition of punishment
vide resolution dated 26.10.2022 as well as the orders passed
under departmental appeal/review, the learned Single Judge
should have considered the grounds taken in the writ petition as
to whether it is a fit case for quashing the resolution of imposing
punishment of censure and withholding of two interments with
non-cumulative effect or not and should not have disposed of
the writ petition holding that since the appellant had already
suffered two increments, therefore, he was entitled for being
promoted after the expiry of the penalty. When it is the case of
the appellant that there being no evidence whatsoever available
on record to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant is guilty of
the two charges, it should have been examined. If the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
15/16
conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the
disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on
the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of
certiorari could be issued. Of course, adequacy and reliability of
the evidence should not be gone into and the High Court should
not interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings
can be based. Needless to say that infliction of punishment of
withholding two increments with non-cumulative effect along
with censure casts stigma on the Government servant, visit the
Officer with civil consequences, affecting his future career, and
therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the learned Single Judge should have considered
the matter on its merits, has got substantial force.
11. In view of the forgoing discussions, we find that there
is perversity in the impugned order and hence, we feel it proper
to set aside the same and remit the matter to the learned Single
Judge for fresh adjudication of the case on merits.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the
matter is remitted back for reconsideration of the matter and be
placed before the Hon’ble Judge dealing with such matters as
per roaster.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.65 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
16/16
13. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the accusation leveled against the appellant, the
punishment imposed and whether the same would be legally
sustainable on the basis of the materials available on record, as
was produced before the disciplinary authority. It is open to the
learned Single Judge to consider the same on its own merits.
14. In the result, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the
extent indicated, hereinabove.
15. The parties shall bear their own cost.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
shailendra/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 02.03.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…