Patna High Court
BiharversusIndrajit Saxena
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appellate bench affirmed the Single Judge’s order, holding that the disciplinary authority’s failure to consider the explanation violated natural justice and there was no perversity to disturb the finding.
Summary
The respondent, a former Assistant Engineer, was punished with withholding of two increments after a show‑cause notice and a disciplinary inquiry. He filed a writ petition alleging that the disciplinary authority did not consider his written explanation, violating natural justice. The Single Judge set aside the punishment orders, holding the failure to consider the explanation was a breach of procedural fairness. The State appealed, contending that the explanation had been examined and that the Single Judge’s findings were not perverse. The Division Bench examined the scope of interference in an intra‑court appeal and, relying on Supreme Court precedents, concluded that the Single Judge’s findings were not perverse and that the natural‑justice violation justified upholding the order. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Single Judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Did the disciplinary authority violate the principles of natural justice by not considering the respondent's explanation before imposing punishment?
- Can the order of the Single Judge setting aside the punishment be disturbed in an intra‑court appeal under the Letters Patent?
- Should the matter be remanded to the disciplinary authority given the respondent's retirement and the minor nature of the punishment?
Subjects
- natural justice
- disciplinary action
- intra‑court appeal
- letters patent appeal
- service law
- procedural fairness
- punishment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.660 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10402 of 2016
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna
3. The Prinicpal Secretary, Disasters Management Department, Bihar, Patna
4. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna
5. The Additional Secretary Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna
6. The Deputy Secretary Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna
7. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna
8. The Engineer-in-chief North, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna
9. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnia
10. The Chief Engineer, Water Science and Scheme Arrangement, Department
of Water Resources, Bihar, Patna
11. The Superintending Engineer, Mahananda Flood Control Circle, Katihar
12. The Superintending Engineer, Flood Scheme and Monitoring Anchal, Water
Resources Department, Patna
13. The Superintending Engineer, Flood Control Division, Katihar
14. The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Katihar
15. The Executive Engineer, Flying Squad Division No. 7, Water Resources
Department, Patna
16. The Assistant Engineer, Flying Squad Circle, Water Resources Department,
Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Indrajit Saxena Son of Late Anup Ram Resident of Shishmahal Apartment,
Block - B, Flat No. 4B, Near Bahadurpur Gumti, P.S. - Bahadurpur, District -
Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AC to GP-5
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.660 of 2023(4) dt.31-03-2026
2/7
4 31-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present intra court appeal is directed against
the order dated 12.01.2023, passed in CWJC No. 10402 of
2016, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ
petition and set aside the orders dated 24.12.2012 (Annexure-2
to the Writ Petition) and 01.04.2015 (Annexure-4 to the Writ
Petition).
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent
(Writ Petitioner) was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the
concerned department on 04.07.1987. Subsequently, he was
promoted to the posts of Executive Engineer, Superintending
Engineer, and Chief Engineer. On 04.02.2010, the respondent
was issued a show cause notice, directing him to explain the
charges levelled against him. The respondent submitted his
reply dated 25.08.2010 and pursuant thereto, an order of
punishment dated 24.12.2012 was passed. Thereafter, he
preferred a review of the said order before the Principal
Secretary, Water Resources Department, which came to be
dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2015, and the order of
punishment was affirmed.
4. The writ petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders
of punishment before the learned Single Judge on the ground
Patna High Court L.P.A No.660 of 2023(4) dt.31-03-2026
3/7
that the explanation/reply which was furnished by the petitioner
has not been considered by the concerned authorities. The
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that
while passing the order imposing punishment, the concerned
authorities did not consider the explanation of the petitioner. As
such, the impugned orders were passed in violation to the
principles of Natural Justice. The relevant paragraphs of the
order of learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:
“Having heard the rival submissions of
the parties and taking into consideration the
materials available on record, it is clear that while
passing the order of punishment the Disciplinary
Authority failed to take into consideration the reply
filed by the petitioner. It is has rightly been
submitted by the petitioner that recording of reason
is a principle of natural justice.
Order imposing punishment does not
disclose at all any application of mind as to why
petitioner’s representation against finding recorded
by Inquiring Authority have not been accepted. It is
mandatory for the Disciplinary Authority to deal
with the explanation filed by the delinquent while
exercising power under Disciplinary Rules. Non
compliance of it will result into violation of natural
justice and breach of statutory provision itself.
Since the petitioner has retired from
service in the year 2017 and minor punishment has
been imposed against him, this court holds that it
would not be proper, at this stage, to remit the
matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.660 of 2023(4) dt.31-03-2026
4/7
consider the matter afresh.
In the result, this writ application is
allowed and the impugned orders as contained in
memo No. 1429 dated 24.12.2012 (Annexure-2 to
the writ petition) and in memo No. 797 dated
01.04.2015 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) are
hereby set aside. The petitioner is, accordingly, also
held to be entitled to the consequential benefits, if
any.”
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an
explanation had been sought from the respondent on
04.02.2010, in pursuance to which the respondent had submitted
his reply dated 25.08.2010. The said reply/explanation had been
examined at government level, and after considering such reply
the department had passed the order dated 24.12.2012. The
respondent was alleged to be negligent in his act, and committed
latches in his supervision.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that orders of the department were passed after exercising due
process of departmental proceeding in due observance of the
principles of natural justice.
7. Upon perusal of orders of the department, it is
evident that the explanation which was submitted by the
respondent (Writ Petitioner) on 25.08.2010, has not been
considered in the order imposing punishment dated 24.12.2012.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.660 of 2023(4) dt.31-03-2026
5/7
The explanation submitted had not been discussed by the
authorities, and no specific finding on the said explanation was
given. As such, it is evident that the concerned authorities had
not applied their minds with respect to the explanation given by
the respondent. Thus, such non-consideration of the
reply/explanation submitted by the respondent would amount to
violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
8. Further, the appellants have been unable to show
that the explanation submitted by the respondent was considered
by the concerned authorities. No relevant documents or
materials have been brought on record to show that such reply
of the respondent was considered. Thus, the appellants have
been unable to dislodge the findings of the learned Single Judge.
9. The punishment of withholding two increments is
non-cumulative, and is a minor punishment. Since the writ
petitioner has superannuated from the service way back in the
year 2017, in that view of the matter, it seems inappropriate to
remand the matter to the disciplinary authority for fresh
consideration.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court proceeds to
examine the matter within the limited scope of interference
available in an intra court appeal. It is well settled that in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.660 of 2023(4) dt.31-03-2026
6/7
exercise of jurisdiction under Letters Patent, this Court does not
sit as a court of appeal 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.”
11. 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 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
Patna High Court L.P.A No.660 of 2023(4) dt.31-03-2026
7/7
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.”
12. Considering the fact that the principles of natural
justice were not followed while passing the order imposing
punishment, and in view of the discussions made above, we find
no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Writ Court.
13. The order of the learned Single Judge stands
affirmed, and the directions made therein shall follow.
14. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands
dismissed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Sachin/-
U
Checking your session…