Patna High Court
Arun Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 21 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16691 of 2014
======================================================
Arun Kumar Singh Son of Sri Yogendra Prasad Singh, resident of village-
Chitrauli, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Director, Directorate of Integrated Child Development Service ICDS
null Social Welfare Department, 2nd Floor, Indira Bhawan, Ram Charitra
Singh Path, Boring Road, Patna.
3. Assistant Director, Directorate of Integrated Child Development Service
ICDS Social Welfare Department, 2nd Floor, Indira Bhawan, Ram Charitra
Singh Path, Boring Road, Patna.
4. District Programme Officer, West Champaran at Bettiah.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Braj Kishore Singh, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajnish Shandilya AC to GA-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-07-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
"i. To set aside the order contained in Memo
no. 2523 dated 22.4.2014 issued under the
signature of respondent Director, Directorate
of Integrated Child Development service
(hereinafter referred to as I.C.D.S. for
short), by which, pursuant to a departmental
-proceeding initiated against the petitioner
for exactly the same and similar charges,
which charges are subject matter of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
2/36
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 015/2011, instituted
against him, the petitioner, even during the
pendency of said Vigilance P.S. Case No. No.
015/2011, has been awarded major
punishment of dismissal from service.
ii) For a direction to the respondents to
allow the petitioner to continue in service till
the final disposal of Vigilance P.S. Case No.
015/2011 instituted against the petitioner for
alleged offence under Section 7/13 (2) read
with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988, in the light of the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in S.L.P.(Civil)NO. 1906 of 1999
reported in 1999."
Brief Facts of the Case
3. The briefs facts which are necessary for
adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner
was initially appointed as a Clerk-cum-typist in the Directorate
of Adult Education in the Department of Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. The
services of the petitioner along with large number of employees
was terminated on the ground that they were appointed illegally.
The order of termination was later on set aside by a Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court with a direction to the State
authorities to reinstate the petitioner and others similarly
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
3/36
situated employees in the Non-formal wing of the same
Directorate of Adult Education with all consequential benefits of
continuity of service. The petitioner and others were reinstated
in Non-formal wing of the Directorate of Adult Education,
however they were retrenched from service on the ground of
closure of Non-formal Education Scheme. The petitioner along
with others again moved before this Hon'ble Court, however,
during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner along with
others was absorbed in the Directorate of I.C.D.S. of the Welfare
Department. The petitioner was given the charge of typist-cum-
Clerk in the office of I.C.D.S. Lauriya, West Champaran at
Bettiah. One Sajid Ali, who was earlier working as a Data Entry
Operator in the same office, submitted an un-affidavit complaint
before the Vigilance Department, alleging therein with regard to
demand of illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. One lakh for
the purposes of appointment of his wife as a Anganbari Sevika.
On the complaint made by the said person, the Vigilance
Department constituted a trap team, and upon searching the
petitioner, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was recovered from his pocket.
After following the legal formalities the petitioner was
apprehended and a first information report was lodged against
him. The petitioner was released on bail vide order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
4/36
30.11.2011
passed by this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner
reported for joining on 09.12.2011 and after receiving the
joining report of the petitioner, the District Programme Officer,
sought for instruction from the Director, I.C.D.S., with regard to
acceptance of joining of the petitioner. Vide memo no. 234
dated 23.01.2012 issued under the signature of the Director,
Directorate of Integrated Child Development Service,
Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna
while issuing direction to accept the joining of the petitioner
w.e.f. 09.12.2011, it was further directed that the petitioner be
put under suspension w.e.f. the same date i.e. 09.12.2011, in
contemplation of departmental proceeding, in terms of Rule 9(3)
(i) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. It was further directed that
during period of suspension, the petitioner will be posted in the
office of the District Programme Officer, West Champaran. The
said order was later on modified and the Headquarter was fixed
in the office of the District Programme Officer, Begusarai. Vide
memo no. 3346 dated 26.09.2012 issued under the signature of
the Director, I.C.D.S., memo of charge was issued to the
petitioner wherein certain charges were levelled against the
petitioner with regard to lodging of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 15
of 2011. The charges were exactly the same for which Vigilance
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
5/36
P.S. Case no. 15 of 2011 has been instituted against the
petitioner.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that along with the
memo of charge no list of witnesses or documents were
provided to the petitioner, on the basis of which the department
intended to proceeded during the departmental proceeding and
to prove the charges against the petitioner. The only document
which was referred to along with memo of charge was an order
contained in memo no. 861 dated 31.03.2011 issued under the
signature of the Secretary, Social Welfare Department-cum-
Director I.C.D.S. It is specific case of the petitioner that even
the copy of the said order dated 31.03.2011 was not supplied to
the petitioner. In absence of any document, the petitioner
submitted his reply on 25.10.2012 before the Enquiry Officer,
wherein he requested for making him available the documents,
including the written statement of witnesses, their names, the
statement of In-charge of the trap team and other relevant
documents. The petitioner also denied the charges/allegations
levelled against him and requested the Enquiry Officer to
exonerate him from the charges, for which departmental
proceeding was initiated against him. The petitioner appeared in
the departmental proceeding on the date fixed and reiterated his
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
6/36
demand/request for providing him the documents, which he had
asked from the Enquiry Officer by filing his tentative reply,
however, the documents were not supplied/provided to the
petitioner. Left with no other option the petitioner submitted his
final reply, although in absence of the documents sought for by
him, on 25.03.2013. In his reply the petitioner denied the
charges levelled against him and gave details about each and
every charge which was levelled against him, to show his
innocence and again requested the Enquiry Officer to exonerate
him from the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer
after conducting the departmental enquiry, submitted his enquiry
report before the Disciplinary Authority/Deputy Director
I.C.D.S. vide letter no. 207 dated 30.01.2014. It is further case
of the petitioner that the copy of the said enquiry report was not
provided to the petitioner at any time, however, he was able to
obtain a copy of the same through Right to Information Act and
the same was supplied to him through post on 24.06.2014. A
second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on
13.03.2014, without providing the Enquiry Report, as per the
statement of the petitioner and in response to the second show
cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply wherein he
informed the disciplinary authority about non-supply of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
7/36
Enquiry Report to the petitioner and he submitted detail with
regard to his innocence and also requested that since criminal
case bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 15 of 2011 is still pending
against him for exactly the same charge, the departmental
proceeding initiated against him be kept in abeyance. The
disciplinary authority by the impugned order contained in memo
no. 2523 dated 22.04.2014, while recording that no explanation
has been provided to the disciplinary authority by the petitioner,
the disciplinary authority on the basis of enquiry report came to
the conclusion that the petitioner does not deserves to be in
service and accordingly in terms of the Rule (14) (x) of the
Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 proceeded to pass an order of dismissal
from service against the petitioner w.e.f. date of issuance of the
impugned order i.e. 22.04.2014. It was further directed that for
the period under suspension, the petitioner would not be entitled
for any payment, except the subsistence allowance, which has
been paid to the petitioner.
5. Being aggrieved with the order of punishment
dated 22.04.2014, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal
before the appellate authority i.e. the Principal Secretary, Social
Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna on
25.07.2014. It is further case of the petitioner that although he
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
8/36
had preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority on
25.07.2014, however, without waiting for the result of the
statutory appeal, he preferred the present writ petition. I.A. No.
8828 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner whereby prayer was
made to set aside the order contained in memo no. 6040 dated
06.11.2014 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Social
Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, by which the
appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of
punishment dated 22.04.2014 was rejected. The I.A. No. 8828
of 2014 was allowed vide order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the
learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the prayer made
therein was treated to be part and parcel of the writ petition.
Subsequently, I.A. No. 02 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner
whereby a prayer was made for setting aside the order contained
in memo no. 3340 dated 26.09.2012 issued under the signature
of the Director, I.C.D.S., by which the departmental proceeding
was initiated against the petitioner for the charges appended to
the said order dated 26.09.2012, resulting in award of major
punishment of dismissal from service of the petitioner was
passed. Vide order dated 21.02.2022 passed by a learned Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, the Interlocutory Application
bearing I.A. No. 02 of 2021 was allowed and the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
9/36
directed to carry out necessary amendment and to file amended
petition after serving a copy of the amended petition to the
learned counsel for the State/respondents.
Submission on Behalf of the Petitioner
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the initiation of departmental proceeding itself was not in
terms of the provisions contained in Bihar CCA Rules, 2005
inasmuch as that along with the memo of charge, no list of
documents or witnesses were provided to the petitioner which is
mandatory in terms of Rules 17(3) and (4) of the Bihar CCA
Rules. He submits that even the only document which has been
relied upon by the department to substantiate the charge during
the departmental proceeding, was not provided to the petitioner.
He submits that despite his request for providing the said
documents as well as other relevant documents, the same were
never provided to the petitioner, either by the
department/disciplinary authority or by the Enquiry Officer.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that during course of enquiry not even a single witness
was examined by the Presenting Officer to substantiate the
charges levelled against the petitioner and even the complainant
on whose complaint, the vigilance case was lodged against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
10/36
petitioner and on the basis of which the departmental
proceeding was initiated, was not examined. The Enquiry
Officer, on the basis of the opinion/written submission given by
the Presenting Officer, on his own proceeded to prove the
charges against the petitioner. He submits that the Enquiry
Officer himself assumed the role of the Presenting Officer,
which is not permissible in a quasi-judicial proceeding and
therefore the entire enquiry report is perverse.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that during course of enquiry no opportunity was granted to the
petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, since no witness were
produced on behalf of the department and he was even denied
an opportunity to adduce evidence on his behalf which is also in
complete violation of the provisions contained in Rule 17 (14)
of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that even the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal
from service by recording that no explanation has been
submitted by the petitioner, although the same was submitted by
the petitioner through post on 27.03.2014. He submits that being
aggrieved with the order passed by the disciplinary authority,
the petitioner filed statutory appeal before the appellate
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
11/36
authority wherein he had taken his plea with regard to non
supply of enquiry report and the relevant documents, however
the appellate authority without considering the defence taken
by the petitioner in his memo of appeal, proceeded to reject the
same vide his order dated 06.11.2014.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the impugned order passed by the disciplinary
authority and the appellate order passed by the appellate
authority have been passed without even considering the reply
filed by the petitioner or the grounds taken in his memo of
appeal.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support
of his contention refers to and relies upon a judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2010 (2) SCC 772
(State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha) wherein in
paragraph no. 28, it has been held as follows:-
28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-
judicial authority is in the position of an
independent adjudicator. He is not supposed
to be a representative of the
department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His function is to
examine the evidence presented by the
Department, even in the absence of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
12/36
delinquent official to see as to whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that
the charges are proved. In the present case
the aforesaid procedure has not been
observed. Since no oral evidence has been
examined the documents have not been
proved, and could not have been taken into
consideration to conclude that the charges
have been proved against the respondents.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to an order passed by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court dated 06.10.2021 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16204 of 2016
( Dr. Rakesh Kr. Panjiyar Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr.),
wherein in paragraph nos. 19, 21 and 23, it has been held as
follows:-
“19. It is true that charge of misconduct in a
departmental inquiry need not be proved on
the standards of ‘beyond all reasonable
doubts’. The technical Rules, which govern a
criminal trial, do not apply in domestic
inquiries. Nevertheless, even in such
proceedings a scrupulous care is essential to
establish such charge on the basis of some
evidence. There cannot be any quarrel over
the legal proposition that this Court in
exercise of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India should not reappreciate
evidence and substitute its own view in place
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
13/36of the view of the Inquiring Authority or the
disciplinary Authority. However, if this Court
exercising jurisdiction of judicial review
notices that the conclusion of the Inquiring
Authority or Disciplinary Authority is based
on no evidence, such findings would surely
require interference in such jurisdiction. The
High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has a duty to inquire
whether the finding of the Inquiring
Authority on which the impugned order of
dismissal rests is supported by any evidence
or not.
21. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the
Supreme Court’s decision in case of Roop
Singh Negi (supra) wherein it has been
clearly held in paragraph 14 as under :-
“Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding.
The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial
function. The charges levelled against the
delinquent officer must be found to have
been proved. 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 investigation by
the investigating officer against all the
accused by itself could not be treated to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
14/36evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No
witness was examined to prove the said
documents. The management witnesses
merely tendered the documents and did not
prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter
alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the
FIR which could not have been treated as
evidence.”
23. In view of the admitted factual aspects of
the matter and judicial pronouncements as
noted hereinabove, in my opinion, the report
of the Inquiring Authority recording finding
to the effect that charge against the
petitioner stood proved without any proof is
unsustainable. The order of the Disciplinary
Authority is vulnerable on two counts.
Firstly, the finding recorded by the Inquiring
Authority, which is without evidence, has
been accepted. Secondly, the Disciplinary
Authority has not taken into account the
petitioner’s reply submitted in response to
the report of the Inquiring Authority which
was supplied to him. The Supreme Court in
case of Punjab National Bank and others
vs. K.K. Verma reported in (2010) 13 SCC
494 has held that a delinquent employee
prior to 42nd Amendment was entitled to two
representations to make representation: (i)
To defend himself against the charge against
him and prove his innocence, which
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
15/36
opportunity is to be given by giving him the
inquiry report against him and (ii)
Opportunity to make representation on the
proposed punishment. The right to represent
against the finding of the Inquiring Authority
is not disturbed in any way and denial
thereof will make the final order vulnerable,
the Supreme Court has noted. It was,
therefore, obligatory for the Disciplinary
Authority to have applied its mind on the
petitioner’s response to the report of the
Inquiring Authority, in his order imposing
punishment. Non-application of mind by
Disciplinary Authority on the petitioner’s
response to the report of the Inquiring
Authority amounts to denial of his right to
represent against the said report, which
remained protected even after 42nd
Constitutional Amendment, as held in case
of K.K. Verma (supra).”
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies upon a judgment of learned Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court dated 04.09.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. 5042
of 2016 (Pankaj Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.)
wherein the learned Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows:-
“In somewhat similar situation where the
Presenting Officer was appointed but he did
not choose to lead any evidence this Court in
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
16/36the case of Shankar Dayal Vs. State of
Bihar arising from CWJC No.7207 of 2016
has expressed its opinion which applies with
all force to the case in hand:
“It is not in dispute that
though a Presenting Officer was
appointed for the enquiry but he did not
choose to lead any evidence drawn
against the petitioner or examine the
petitioner on the allegation. On the
contrary it is the Enquiry Officer who
took this duty upon himself. Rule 17 of
‘the Rules’ draws a complete scheme of
the proceeding and details the manner in
which a proceeding is to be conducted.
Rule 17(14) very eloquently describes as
to how a proceeding is to proceed on the
date fixed. A mandatory duty has been
cast on the Presenting Officer to examine
the witnesses and lead evidence collected
against a delinquent. This mandatory
duty has not been discharged. Instead the
Enquiry Officer took this duty upon
himself even when such practice has
been deprecated by the Courts on
different occasions. For ready reference I
would refer to a judgment of the Supreme
Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772
(State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar
Sinha). At paragraph 28 of the judgment
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
17/36the Supreme Court has the following
words of advise for the enquiry officer.
“28. An inquiry officer
acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in
the position of an independent
adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a
representative of the
department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His function is to
examine the evidence presented by the
Department, even in the absence of the
delinquent official to see as to whether
the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved. In the
present case the aforesaid procedure has
not been observed. Since no oral
evidence has been examined the
documents have not been proved, and
could not have been taken into
consideration to conclude that the
charges have been proved against the
respondents.”
In continuation I would also
refer to a judgment reported in 1996 (1)
PLJR 401 (Panchanan Kumar vs. The
Bihar State Electricity Board) in which
case though a Presenting Officer was
appointed but he failed to discharge his
obligation and in his absence his role
was assumed by the Enquiry Officer. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
18/36
opinion of the Bench at paragraph 11 of
the judgment would be relevant for the
issue at hand:
“11. Considering the rival
contentions of the parties, this Court is of
the opinion that in the instant case the
inquiry has been vitiated inasmuch as the
enquiry officer himself has acted as the
presenting officer even though the
presenting officer was appointed by the
Electricity Board. There is no
explanation why the said presenting
officer did not appear before the enquiry
officer to present the case of the
department. In the peculiar facts of this
case, the action of the enquiry officer to
present the case himself on behalf of the
department and also to take upon himself
the duty of enquiring the correctness or
otherwise of the said case clearly shows
that the enquiry officer, in the instant
case, has failed to discharge his duty as a
fair and impartial enquiry authority. He
has rolled up within himself the role of
both the presenting officer and the
enquiry officer and as such has acted in
a manner which is not consistent with the
principles of natural justice…………….”
It is undisputed that there was
no Presenting Officer present either to
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
19/36
lead or to prove the evidence whatsoever,
collected against the petitioner. The
Enquiry Officer in such circumstances
could not have assumed this duty upon
himself to examine the evidence to hold it
sufficient enough for upholding the
charges.
In this connection I would
again refer to paragraph 14 of the
judgment of the Supreme Court reported
in (2009)2 SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi v.
Punjab National Bank) which would
again apply on all fours in the present
case:
“14. Indisputably, a
departmental proceeding is a quasi-
judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer
performs a quasi- judicial function. The
charges levelled against the delinquent
officer must be found to have been
proved. 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 investigation
by the investigating Officer against all
the accused by itself could not be treated
to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to
prove the said documents. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
20/36
management witnesses merely tendered
the documents and did not prove the
contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was
placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR
which could not have been treated as
evidence.”
Where the orders of punishment impugned in
the present writ petition are resting on a
proceeding which is invalid from its very
inception, it would have to suffer the
consequences inasmuch as they are founded
on a proceeding which suffers statutory
violations which are of mandatory nature.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India reported in (2009 (2) SCC 570 (Roop Singh
Negi and Ors Vs. Punjab National Bank) wherein in
paragraph nos. 14 and 23, it has been held as follows:
“14. Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding.
The enquiry officer performs a quasi-
judicial function. The charges levelled
against the delinquent officer must be
found to have been proved. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
21/36investigation by the investigating officer
against all the accused by itself could not
be treated to be evidence in the
disciplinary proceeding. No witness was
examined to prove the said documents.
The management witnesses merely
tendered the documents and did not prove
the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia,
was placed by the enquiry officer on the
FIR which could not have been treated as
evidence.
23. Furthermore, the order of the
disciplinary authority as also the appellate
authority are not supported by any reason.
As the orders passed by them have severe
civil consequences, appropriate reasons
should have been assigned. If the enquiry
officer had relied upon the confession
made by the appellant, there was no
reason as to why the order of discharge
passed by the criminal court on the basis
of selfsame evidence should not have been
taken into consideration. The materials
brought on record pointing out the guilt
are required to be proved. A decision must
be arrived at on some evidence, which is
legally admissible. The provisions of the
Evidence Act may not be applicable in a
departmental proceeding but the
principles of natural justice are. As the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
22/36report of the enquiry officer was based on
merely ipse dixit as also surmises and
conjectures, the same could not have been
sustained. The inferences drawn by the
enquiry officer apparently were not
supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is
well known, however high may be, can
under no circumstances be held to be a
substitute for legal proof.”
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to
and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India reported in 2026 (3) PLJR 125 SC (Jai Prakash Saini
Vs. Managing Director U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd.
And Ors.) wherein in paragraph nos. 17 and 18, it has been held
as follows:
“17. From the decisions of this Court in
Sur Enamel (supra): (AIR 1963 SC 1914)
and Kharak Singh (supra): (2008 AIR
SCW 7507), followed in Chamoli District
Cooperative (supra): (AIR 2016 SC 2510),
which deals with similar service rules as
are applicable here, it is now settled that
unless the charged employee accepts his
guilt in clear terms, an enquiry on the
charges drawn against him would have to
be held. In the enquiry, the
employer/department would have to take
steps first to lead evidence against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
23/36workmen/delinquent charged and give an
opportunity to him to cross examine those
witnesses. Only thereafter, the
workmen/delinquent shall be asked
whether he wants to lead any evidence
and/or submit an explanation about the
evidence led against him. Even in a case
based solely on documentary evidence,
unless the relied upon documents are
admitted by the charged employee, a
witness would have to be examined to
prove those documents and when so
examined, the witness would have to be
tendered for cross-examination.
18. In the instant case, we find that the
department had not produced any witness
in the enquiry even though the charges
levelled upon the appellant were denied
by him. Therefore, in our view, the enquiry
stood vitiated. Once the enquiry stood
vitiated, the consequential order of
punishment/recovery can-not be
sustained. We therefore allow this appeal.
The impugned judgment and order of the
High Court is set aside. The writ petition
of the appellant stands allowed to the
extent indicated below. The order of
dismissal and consequential recovery is
set aside. The Federation is, however, at
liberty to hold a de novo enquiry, if it so
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
24/36desires, within a period of six months from
the date of this order. If the Federation
does not hold de novo enquiry as
permitted above, the appellant shall be
entitled to reinstatement with benefit of
continuity in service including arrears of
salary after adjusting suspension
allowance, if any, paid already. In case
the Federation chooses to hold an
enquiry, it shall reinstate the appellant
and place him under suspension till
completion of the enquiry and during this
period pay suspension allowance as may
be payable in accordance with law. In
case de novo enquiry is held, other service
benefits including arrears of salary as
well as benefits of continuity in service
shall depend on the outcome of the
enquiry.”
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this
Hon’ble Court dated 06.12.2025 passed in L.P.A. No. 415 of
2025 (The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Bharat Purbey)
wherein in paragraph nos. 15 and 21 it has been held as
follows:-
“15. The writ Court took up the matter on
21.12.2022 and having gone through the
entire facts came to the conclusion that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
25/36departmental proceeding was not in
conformity with the Rule 17(14) of the Bihar
CCA Rules 2005. It accordingly allowed the
prayer of the respondent-petitioner. The
relevant portion of the order read as
follows:-
“From the materials
available on record and the settled legal
position, one thing which is evident is
that tendering of documents by
department cannot be said to be
adequate to establish a charge in a
departmental proceeding, unless the
contents thereof are also proved.
Admittedly, neither the contents of the
FIR nor the charge-sheet has been
proved. Further, non-examination of the
complainant is a serious lacunae, which
not only causes prejudice to the
delinquent, but also nullifies the entire
departmental proceeding.
From the materials available on record,
it also appear that the departmental
proceeding is not in conformity with the
Rule 17 (14) of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005, apart from non- observance of
rules 4 and 6 thereof.
In view of the aforesaid settled legal
position and the infirmities crept in the
departmental proceeding, the impugned
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
26/36order as contained in Notification No.
1919 dated 03.09.2019 and the order
passed in revision as contained in
Notification No. 179 dated 06.02.2020,
are hereby set aside. Though this Court
intended to remit the matter back to the
department for de novo departmental
proceedings, however, considering the
fact that the petitioner has already
superannuated, it would be a futile
exercise, hence having been set aside the
impugned orders, the petitioner must be
granted all the retiral benefits in
accordance with law.
Accordingly, the present writ
petition stands allowed”.
21. We are in complete agreement with the
view expressed by the Writ Court. Only
because a criminal case was pending against
the respondent-petitioner in which charge
sheet was submitted, that cannot be basis for
taking departmental proceedings to
conclusion without providing the list of
witnesses as also without adducing any
evidence in support of the charges. Further,
the respondent-petitioner was not allowed to
cross-examine the witnesses and in that
backdrop, the order passed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi (supra)
especially paragraph-14 becomes important
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
27/36
which is placed herein below:-
“14. Indisputably, a
departmental proceeding is a quasi-
judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer
performs a quasi- judicial function. The
charges levelled against the delinquent
officer must be found to have been
proved. 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 investigation
by the investigating Officer against all
the accused by itself could not be treated
to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to
prove the said documents. The
management witnesses merely tendered
the documents and did not prove the
contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was
placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR
which could not have been treated as
evidence.”
Submission on Behalf of the Respondent
17. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State while referring to the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the State submits that the departmental proceeding
which was conducted against the petitioner in terms of the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
28/36
CCA Rules, 2005. He submits that the petitioner was caught red
handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- and the same
was recovered from his pocket. He was apprehended by the
Vigilance Investigation Bureau and first information report was
lodged bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 15 of 2011, was
instituted against him wherein he was released on bail by this
Hon’ble Court vide order dated 30.11.2011. He further submits
that the petitioner was placed under suspension and a
departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The
Conducting Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed.
The petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding on
the date fixed and the Enquiry Officer, after conducting a detail
enquiry submitted his report on 13.02.2014, whereby he found
the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved. A
second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in terms
of Rule 18(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and along with the
second show cause notice, the enquiry report was also provided
to the petitioner. Considering the gravity of the offence and the
allegations levelled against the petitioner a decision was taken
to dismiss the petitioner from service and accordingly vide order
dated 22.04.2014, the petitioner was dismissed from service.
The petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the appellate
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
29/36
authority, however the same was also dismissed vide order dated
06.11.2014.
18. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State submits that from the own assertion of the petitioner, it
would transpire that he was caught red handed, while taking
bribe and was apprehended on 23.02.2011. After submission of
the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was issued and a
copy of the enquiry report was also forwarded to the petitioner,
along with the second show cause notice. The second show
notice was replied by the petitioner by filing his reply and the
same was duly considered. After going through the enquiry
report, the disciplinary authority proceeded to dismiss the
petitioner from service and further directed that for the period
under suspension, apart from whatever has been paid towards
subsistence allowance, the petitioner will not be entitled for any
further payment. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was
rejected and no procedural irregularity has been committed by
the authorities concerned right from issuance of memo of charge
till issuance of impugned order of punishment. All the relevant
documents, which were asked for by the petitioner i.e. memo of
charge, pre-trap and post-trap memorandum and other relevant
documents were provided to the petitioner along with memo of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
30/36
charge.
19. The learned counsel for the State further
submits that the vigilance case which was instituted against the
petitioner is still pending for adjudication before a competent
Court.
Consideration/Analysis
20. Having considered the rival submissions and
after going through the records, it appears that on a complaint
made by one person before the Vigilance Investigation Bureau,
the petitioner was apprehended along with Rs. 10,000/- from his
pocket. First information report was lodged against him bearing
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 15 of 2011. The petitioner was sent to
judicial custody and was later on released on bail by this
Hon’ble Court. Memo of charge was served to the petitioner on
26.09.2012 and from perusal of the memo of charge, it would
transpire that no list of witnesses or list of documents were
provided to the petitioner, which is mandatory in terms of the
Rules 17 (3) and (4) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Since no list
of witnesses were provided to the petitioner, during course of
enquiry, the Presenting Officer did not adduce any evidence to
support the case of the department, except making his written
submissions/comments. The Enquiry Officer, without
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
31/36
considering the non examination of any witnesses on behalf of
the department to support the document, which was relied upon
by the department/Presenting Officer and which was mentioned
along with the memo of charge, proceeded to prove the charge
against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer himself assumed the
role of the Presenting Officer and without examination of any
witness, went on to prove the charges, for which the petitioner
was proceeded against and submitted his enquiry report,
wherein he found the charge to be proved. No opportunity was
accorded to the petitioner to adduce evidence on his behalf or
even he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses, since no witnesses were examined on behalf of the
department/Presenting Officer and the same is in violation of the
provisions contained in Rule 17(14) of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005. Further while awarding punishment of dismissal from
service the disciplinary authority proceeded to record that the
petitioner did not submit his explanation, although the same was
sent through post on 27.03.2014. Even the appellate authority,
did not take into account any defence taken by the petitioner in
his memo of appeal and proceeded to reject the appeal preferred
by the petitioner. Further the disciplinary authority while taking
the decision with regard to non-payment of any other amount,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
32/36
except the subsistence allowance, which was paid to the
petitioner during period under suspension, did not issue any
separate show cause notice, in terms of the Rule 97 (3) of the
Bihar Service Code, since it was incumbent upon the
disciplinary authority to issue show cause notice for the said
punishment, which he proceeded to pass without any notice to
the petitioner. In terms of the decisions relied by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it would transpire that even in an ex-
parte proceeding, it is incumbent upon the Presenting Officer to
prove the charges levelled against a delinquent officer by
adducing evidence and even the documents which relied upon
during course of departmental proceeding by the Presenting
Officer/department, has to be proved by its author by adducing
evidence.
21. In the present case, no such effort has been
made by the department/Presenting Officer and only on the
basis of the comments/opinion given by the Presenting Officer,
the Enquiry Officer went on to prove the charges levelled
against the petitioner and on the basis of said enquiry report the
disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated
22.04.2014 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from
service. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
33/36
petitioner that during pendency of the writ petition the petitioner
has attained the age of superannuation in March 2025.
22. Considering the above and on the basis of the
different judicial pronouncement, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order contained in memo no. 2523
dated 22.04.2014 passed by the Director I.C.D.S., Social
Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and the
appellate order contained in memo no. 6040 dated 06.11.2014
passed by the Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna deserves to be set aside and are
accordingly set aside. The petitioner would be entitled for all
service related benefits, for which he would have been entitled
prior to passing of memo no 2523 dated 22.04.2014. He would
be entitled for entire salary for the period during which he
remained under suspension, after deducting the subsistence
allowance, if any, paid to the petitioner during the period under
suspension. The petitioner would further be entitled for payment
of salary @ 50% from the date of his dismissal till the date of
his superannuation, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of (Dinesh Chandra Sharma Dead
through LRS Vs. Bhartiya Paryatan Vikas Nigam Limited &
Anr in SLP (C) No. 8180 of 2020) since no affidavit has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
34/36
filed by the petitioner to the effect that after the period of
dismissal he was not gainfully employed anywhere else and
neither any affidavit has been filed by the State bringing it to the
notice of this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner was gainfully
employed. Although the matter has been allowed on
technicalities, however in view of the Division Bench judgment
of this Court in the case of (State of Bihar and Ors. Vs.
Vikash Kumar @ Vikas Kumar) reported in L.P.A. No. 446 of
2024, this Court is refraining from remitting the matter back to
the respondent authorities for proceeding afresh.
23. Further since the matter is not being remitted
back, this Court would refer and rely upon a judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2017 (2) SCC 308
(Allahabad Bank and Ors. Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari),
wherein in paragraph no. 8 of the Supreme Court has held as
follows:
“8. There is no quarrel with the proposition
that in cases where the High Court finds the
enquiry to be deficient, either procedurally
or otherwise, the proper course always is to
remand the matter back to the authority
concerned to redo the same afresh. That
course could have been followed even in the
present case. The matter could be remanded
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
35/36back to the disciplinary authority or to the
enquiry officer for a proper enquiry and a
fresh report and order. But that course may
not have been the only course open in a
given situation. There may be situations
where because of a long time-lag or such
other supervening circumstances the writ
court considers it unfair, harsh or otherwise
unnecessary to direct a fresh enquiry or
fresh order by the competent authority. That
is precisely what the High Court has done in
the case at hand.
24. The writ petition is allowed in the
aforementioned terms.
25. The respondent authorities are directed to make
payment of the entire amount towards salary for the period
during which the petitioner remained under suspension and to
make payment of the 50% salary from 22.04.2014 till the date
of superannuation of the petitioner, within a period of the four
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the
order. The respondent authorities are under obligation to
calculate the entitlement of the petitioner for making payment of
his post-retrial benefits, including the payment of his pension
w.e.f. the date of his superannuation and to pay the arrears of
pension within the aforementioned period of four months.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16691 of 2014 dt.21-07-2026
36/36
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
krishnakant/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 24.07.2026 Transmission Date NA
