Patna High Court
Vivekanand Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 24 July, 2026
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6859 of 2023
======================================================
Vivekanand Singh, aged about 55 years, Male, Son of Late Indradev Singh,
Resident of Village-Hempur, P.S.-Nawhatta, District-Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Director General of Police (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
6. The Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Araria-cum-Enquiry Authority.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Raju Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Utkarsh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Md. Nadim Seraj, G.P.-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 24-07-2026
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India for quashing the order contained in
Memo No.718 dated 24.11.2022 issued under the signature of
the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, whereby, in
purported exercise of the power of review under Rule 853A of
the Bihar Police Manual, the earlier order of punishment passed
by the Inspector General of Police, Purnia Range was set aside
and the petitioner was reverted from the post of Police Inspector
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
2/33
to the post of Police Sub-Inspector for a period of four years
with cumulative effect. The petitioner has also prayed for
quashing of the consequential order contained in Memo
No.5190 dated 06.12.2022 issued by the Superintendent of
Police, Purnia.
2. During the pendency of this case, the petitioner
filed Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2025 and challenged the
order contained in Memo No.484 dated 06.04.2022 issued by
the Inspector General of Police, Purnia Range, Purnia, whereby,
disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Authority exonerating
the petitioner, the petitioner was held partially guilty and was
inflicted with the punishment of one censure. The said
Interlocutory Application was allowed by order dated
07.07.2025
and the prayer made therein stood added to the main
writ petition.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner
was directly recruited as a Police Sub-Inspector in the Bihar
Police in the year 1994 and, on the basis of his service record,
was promoted to the rank of Police Inspector in January, 2014
and was posted in the district of Katihar. Since the post of
Sergeant Major, Police Centre, Katihar had fallen vacant, the
petitioner was deputed to officiate on the said post for a short
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
3/33
period of about three months, i.e. from 20.06.2016 to
30.09.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner stood transferred on
deputation to the Modern Police Control Room, Office of the
Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The present controversy relates to the promotion
of one Mithilesh Kumar Singh, a constable of the Katihar
District force. In Madhubani District Departmental Proceeding
No.19 of 2013, on a charge of illegal gratification, the said
constable was dismissed from service. On his appeal, the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range set aside
the order of dismissal and directed that he be taken back in
service with effect from the date of dismissal, however, having
regard to the gravity of the charge, it was further directed that
the said departmental proceeding be conducted afresh. The re-
opened proceeding remained pending.
5. Pursuant to Memo No.914 dated 11.08.2016
issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Purnia Range,
nominations were called for promotion from the rank of
constable to that of Assistant Sub-Inspector. Accordingly, the
Superintendent of Police, Katihar, vide letter No.2809 dated
25.08.2016, forwarded a consolidated nomination of 46
constables. The name of the said constable Mithilesh Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
4/33
Singh figured at Serial No.45 of the said list and, in the
recommendation column of the Superintendent of Police, the
remark “not recommended” was recorded against his name. The
remarks column of the nomination, however, did not mention
the pendency of the re-opened Madhubani District Departmental
Proceeding No.19 of 2013 and the said column was left blank
against all the 46 names. The nomination was prepared by the
then in-charge of the Service Book branch, was verified and
signed by the then Reserve Sub-Inspector-I, was counter-signed
by the petitioner as the officiating Sergeant Major, and was also
signed by the Superintendent of Police, Katihar.
6. The Regional Selection Board, chaired by the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Purnia Range, with the
Superintendents of Police of Purnia, Araria, Kishanganj and
Katihar as its members, met and, upon scrutiny of the service
books and the district nomination, recorded the remark
“recommended” against the name of the said constable. The
minutes of the Board, along with the nomination papers, were
forwarded to the Police Headquarters, and the Police
Headquarters finally promoted the said constable to the rank of
Assistant Sub-Inspector.
7. Subsequently, by letter No.1809 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
5/33
05.11.2020, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel),
Bihar directed the Inspector General of Police, Purnia Range to
identify the personnel involved in the non-disclosure of the
pending departmental proceeding, both at the stage of sending
the nomination and at the stage of recording of the district/range
orders, and to take action against them.
8. Pursuant to the said direction, an enquiry was
conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police
(Headquarters), Katihar who, vide his report dated 28.11.2020,
found the then in-charge of the Service Book branch, the then
Reserve Sub-Inspector-I and the petitioner responsible for the
alleged non-disclosure and recommended departmental
proceedings against the three of them.
9. A show-cause was issued to the petitioner on
01.12.2020, to which he submitted his explanation. Being
dissatisfied with the explanation, Katihar District Departmental
Proceeding No.08 of 2021 was initiated against the petitioner,
and the memo of charge, approved by the Inspector General of
Police, Purnia Range, was served upon him on 19.01.2021. The
sole article of charge against the petitioner was of negligence,
dereliction of duty and suspicious conduct in the preparation of
the aforesaid nomination dated 25.08.2016.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
6/33
10. The petitioner submitted his first defence
explanation on 08.07.2021 and also submitted his final defence.
In the departmental enquiry, four witnesses were examined
namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters),
Katihar, the confidential reader of the office of the
Superintendent of Police, Katihar, the Reserve Sub-Inspector-I,
Police Centre, Katihar; and the Section Officer of the office of
the Inspector General of Police, Purnia Range. The witnesses
proved the signatures on record. In answer to the questions put
by the petitioner, the Reserve Sub-Inspector-I stated that the
nomination list recorded “not recommended”, and the Section
Officer admitted that the nomination, as sent, bore the remark
“not recommended” and that the service books are also tallied
with the nomination in the office of the Inspector General of
Police.
11. The Enquiry Authority-cum-Superintendent of
Police, Araria, by his report dated 30.12.2021, exonerated the
petitioner of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority-cum-
Inspector General of Police, Purnia Range, however, by his
order contained in Memo No.484 dated 06.04.2022, disagreed
with the report of the Enquiry Authority, held the petitioner
partially guilty of the charge and inflicted upon him the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
7/33
punishment of one censure.
12. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector General of
Police (Personnel), Bihar, vide Memo dated 23.09.2022,
informed the petitioner that the punishment awarded to him had
been found low in comparison to the charge and it had been
decided to review the matter under Rule 853A of the Bihar
Police Manual, and called upon him to submit his defence
against enhancement of the punishment. The petitioner
submitted his detailed explanation on 10.10.2022. The Director
General of Police, Bihar, by the impugned order contained in
Memo No.718 dated 24.11.2022, observed that the explanation
of the petitioner presented no new fact and that the charge was
of a grave nature and that the punishment awarded by the
Disciplinary Authority was very low in comparison to the
charge. He, accordingly, set aside the punishment of censure
and imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of reversion
from the post of Police Inspector to the post of Police Sub-
Inspector for four years with cumulative effect. The said order
was given effect to by the Superintendent of Police, Purnia vide
Memo No.5190 dated 06.12.2022.
13. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the very foundation of both the impugned
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
8/33
punishment orders is the finding of partial guilt recorded by the
Disciplinary Authority in the teeth of the exoneration of the
petitioner by the Enquiry Authority, and that the said finding is
vitiated for non-compliance with Rule 18(2) of the Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 2005, which obliges the disciplinary authority, if it
disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority on any
article of charge, to record its reasons for such disagreement and
to record its own independent finding only if the evidence on
record is sufficient for the purpose. It is submitted that the law is
settled that where the disciplinary authority proposes to differ
with a finding favourable to the delinquent, it must record its
tentative reasons of disagreement, communicate the same to the
delinquent and afford him an opportunity of hearing before
recording a final finding of guilt. Learned counsel has
emphasised that, in the present case, admittedly, no tentative
reasons of disagreement were either recorded or communicated,
the enquiry report was not furnished, and no opportunity of
hearing on the proposed disagreement was afforded to the
petitioner before the punishment was imposed.
14. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
9/33
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-
(i) Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj
Behari Misra, reported as (1998) 7 SCC 84;
(ii) Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra
& Anr., reported as (1999) 7 SCC 739;
(iii) State Bank of India & Ors. v. K.P.
Narayanan Kutty, reported as (2003) 2 SCC
449;
(iv) J.A. Naiksatam v. Prothonotary and Senior
Master, High Court of Bombay & Ors.,
reported as (2004) 8 SCC 653;
(v) P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India & Ors.,
reported as (2006) 8 SCC 776;
(vi) Ranjit Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,
reported as (2006) 4 SCC 153;
(vii) Lav Nigam v. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. &
Anr., reported as (2006) 9 SCC 440;
(viii) S.P. Malhotra v. Punjab National Bank &
Ors., reported as (2013) 7 SCC 251;
(ix) Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat & Anr.,
reported as (2013) 4 SCC 301; and
(x) Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Ors., reported as 2024 INSC 873.
15. It has next been submitted that the non-
supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner, before the
Disciplinary Authority acted upon it, independently vitiates the
order of punishment, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Mohd.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
10/33
Ramzan Khan, reported as (1991) 1 SCC 588 and Managing
Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors.,
reported as (1993) 4 SCC 727. Placing reliance on Canara
Bank & Ors. v. Debasis Das & Ors., reported as (2003) 4 SCC
557, it is submitted that natural justice requires disclosure of the
material proposed to be relied upon against the delinquent, and
that non-supply of such material results in denial of a proper
opportunity of defence.
16. Learned counsel has next submitted that the
impugned order of the Director General of Police dated
24.11.2022 is unsustainable even on its own terms. The power
of suo motu review under Rule 853A of the Bihar Police Manual
is quasi-judicial in nature and therefore, the show-cause notice
must disclose the grounds on which enhancement is proposed,
and the final order must deal with the defence of the delinquent
by recording independent reasons. It is argued that the notice
dated 23.09.2022 disclosed no grounds whatsoever and the final
order rejected the detailed representation of the petitioner with
the solitary observation that it presented no new fact, without
adverting to a single contention. It has further been submitted
that the impugned order, while recording no independent
reasons of its own for disagreeing either with the enquiry report
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
11/33
or with the order of the Disciplinary Authority, in fact recites the
very findings of the Enquiry Authority which establish the
innocence of the petitioner.
17. Learned counsel has additionally contended that
the findings against the petitioner rest on no legal evidence, all
four prosecution witnesses being formal witnesses who merely
proved signatures, and that the proceeding was vitiated by an
unexplained delay of more than four years, the alleged lapse
being of 25.08.2016 while the show-cause and the charge came
to be issued only on 01.12.2020 and 19.01.2021 respectively.
Reliance in this behalf has been placed on the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. H.C.
Goel, reported as AIR 1964 SC 364, Roop Singh Negi v.
Punjab National Bank & Ors., reported as (2009) 2 SCC 570
and M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors., reported as (2006) 5
SCC 88.
18. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that
once the foundational finding of guilt recorded by the
Disciplinary Authority falls for breach of Rule 18(2) and of the
principles of natural justice, the entire superstructure erected
upon it including the order of enhancement passed by the
Director General of Police and the consequential district order
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
12/33
must fall with it, on the principle sublato fundamento cadit
opus, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors.,
reported as (2011) 14 SCC 770.
19. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent-State has submitted that the departmental proceeding
was validly initiated against the petitioner on the charge of
concealment of the pendency of a departmental proceeding
against constable Mithilesh Kumar Singh at the time of his
promotion. Although the Enquiry Authority did not find the
petitioner guilty, the Disciplinary Authority, not being fully
satisfied with the findings of the enquiry report, held the
petitioner partially guilty and imposed the punishment of one
censure. Subsequently, on a review at the level of the Police
Headquarters, the said punishment was found disproportionately
low in comparison to the allegation, and the Director General of
Police, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 853A of
the Bihar Police Manual, imposed the punishment of reversion
from the post of Police Inspector to the post of Police Sub-
Inspector for four years with cumulative effect.
20. It is submitted that the principles of natural
justice were duly complied with at every stage of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
13/33
departmental proceeding and that due opportunity of showing
cause was granted to the petitioner both before the imposition of
the punishment and before its enhancement. Therefore, it is
submitted that the impugned orders suffer from no illegality or
infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
21. I have considered the submissions of the
parties and have perused the materials on record.
22. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is
apposite to remind oneself of the limited contours of judicial
review in matters arising out of departmental proceedings. This
Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, does not sit in appeal over the findings recorded in
a departmental proceeding, and it is not for this Court to re-
appreciate the evidence or to substitute its own conclusions on
the merits of the charge. The scrutiny of this Court is confined
to examining whether the enquiry has been conducted by a
competent authority, in accordance with the procedure
prescribed, and in scrupulous and strict conformity with the
principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., reported as (1995) 6
SCC 749, has held as follows:-
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a
decision but a review of the manner in
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
14/33which the decision is made. Power of
judicial review is meant to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and not
to ensure that the conclusion which the
authority reaches is necessarily correct in
the eye of the court. When an inquiry is
conducted on charges of misconduct by a
public servant, the Court/Tribunal is
concerned to determine whether the
inquiry was held by a competent officer or
whether rules of natural justice are
complied with. Whether the findings or
conclusions are based on some evidence,
the authority entrusted with the power to
hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and
authority to reach a finding of fact or
conclusion. But that finding must be based
on some evidence. Neither the technical
rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact
or evidence as defined therein, apply to
disciplinary proceeding. When the
authority accepts that evidence and
conclusion receives support therefrom, the
disciplinary authority is entitled to hold
that the delinquent officer is guilty of the
charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of
judicial review does not act as appellate
authority to re-appreciate the evidence and
to arrive at its own independent findings
on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may
interfere where the authority held the
proceedings against the delinquent officer
in a manner inconsistent with the rules of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
15/33natural justice or in violation of statutory
rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or
where the conclusion or finding reached by
the disciplinary authority is based on no
evidence. If the conclusion or finding be
such as no reasonable person would have
ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may
interfere with the conclusion or the
finding, and mould the relief so as to make
it appropriate to the facts of each case.”
23. The present case, therefore, has to be
examined not on the merits of the charge against the petitioner,
but on the touchstone of whether the authorities, while
proceeding against the petitioner, scrupulously and strictly
adhered to the statutory procedure and to the principles of
natural justice.
24. Certain facts emerging from the record are
not in dispute. First, there was a single article of charge against
the petitioner, namely, of negligence, dereliction of duty and
suspicious conduct in the preparation of the nomination dated
25.08.2016. Secondly, the nomination, as sent from the district,
expressly recorded the remark “not recommended” against the
name of the constable Mithilesh Kumar Singh, and every
departmental witness who spoke on the point admitted as such.
Thirdly, the Enquiry Authority, upon a full-fledged enquiry,
exonerated the petitioner by a reasoned report dated 30.12.2021.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
16/33
From the records, it is not the case that, before the Disciplinary
Authority recorded a finding of partial guilt on 06.04.2022, any
tentative reasons of disagreement with the said report were
recorded or communicated to the petitioner, or that the enquiry
report was furnished to him, or further that any opportunity of
hearing on the proposed disagreement was afforded to him. The
show-cause notice dated 23.09.2022, which preceded the order
of enhancement, also did not set out any grounds of proposed
disagreement, either with the exonerating enquiry report or with
the order of the Disciplinary Authority by which punishment of
one censure was awarded to the petitioner.
25. From the aforesaid factual background, it
emerges that three documents lie at the heart of this controversy
and deserve to be noticed in their own words. The first is the
report of the Enquiry Authority-cum-Superintendent of Police,
Araria dated 30.12.2021. After discussing the charge, the
exhibits, the depositions of the four witnesses and the defence of
the petitioner, the Enquiry Authority concluded as follows:-
“pw¡fd vipkjh ek= rhu ekg rd gh ifjpkjh çoj]
iqfyl dsUæ] dfVgkj ds in ij inLFkfir Fks rFkk
ihÃ¥VhÃ¥lhÃ¥/29] fefFkys’k dqekj flag ds flikgh ls
lÃ¥vÃ¥fuÃ¥ dh dksfV esa inksUufr dk ftykns’k vafdr
djrs le; vipkjh vk/kqfud iqfyl fu;a=.k d{k]
iVuk iqfyl egkfuns’kd dk;kZy;] fcgkj] iVuk ds
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
17/33dk;kZy; çfrfu;qä FksA bl çdkj mä ihåVhålhå
ds inksUufr ds laca/k esa dh x;h dfVgkj ftykns’k
laå&118/2017 budh vuqifLFkfr esa vafdr dh x;h
gSAlHkh rF;ksa ds xgu leh{kk ls eSa vipkjh dks yxk;s
x;s vkjksi ds fy, funksZ”k ikrk gw¡A”
26. Thereafter the order of the Disciplinary
Authority-cum-Inspector General of Police, Purnia Range
contained in Memo No.484 dated 06.04.2022 (Purnia Range
Order No.84/2022). After noticing the charge, the enquiry
proceedings and the exonerating opinion of the Enquiry
Authority, the Disciplinary Authority concluded thus:-
“iqfyl eq[;ky; }kjk fuxZr çksUufr vkns’k dh
dafMdk&2 esa ;g mYysf[kr Fkk fd ;fn dksbZ
uoçksUur låvåfuå ihåVhålhå / fgUnh çk:i.k
ijh{kk vuqrh.kZ gks ;k fdlh o`gn ltk ds çHkko esa gks]
foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh çkjEHk gqbZ gks ;k QkStnkjh eqdnek
nk;j gqvk gks rks ftykns’k / {ks=kns’k jksd dj iqfyl
eq[;ky; dks lwfpr fd;k tk;sxkA bl lanHkZ esa fuxZr
iwf.kZ;k {ks=kns’k la0&30/2017] Kkikad&191/lkåçå]
fnukad&13-02-2017 esa Hkh çksUufr dh ‘krsZ iqfyl
eq[;ky; ds vkns’k esa fufgr funsZ’kksa ds v/khu j[kus
dk vkns’k fn;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq mä ihÃ¥VhÃ¥lhÃ¥
flikgh/29 fefFkys’k flag ds fo:) iwoZ ls e/kqcuh
ftyk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh laå&19/13 yafcr jgus ds
ckotwn låvåfuå ds in ij çksUufr fn;s tkus
lacaf/kr ftykns’k fuxZr fd;s tkus ds le; vipkjh
iqfyl eq[;ky; esa çfrfu;qä Fks] ftldk mYys[k
tk¡p çkf/kdkj ds }kjk lefiZr earO; esa fd;k x;k
gSA
vr,o vipkjh iqåfuå foosdkuUn flag dks buds
fo:) yxk, x, vkjksi ds fy, vkaf’kd :i ls nks”kh
ikrs gq, ,d fuUnu dh ltk nh tkrh gSA”
27. It is manifest from the aforesaid order that
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
18/33
the Disciplinary Authority while converting a complete
exoneration into a finding of partial guilt, recorded no
independent or tentative reasons of disagreement with the
enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority had noticed that at
the time of issuance of the District order relating to the
promotion, the petitioner was on deputation at Police
Headquarters, pertinently, the same was also recorded by the
Enquiry authority who had relied upon the said fact and arrived
at the finding in favour of the petitioner and on the contrary, the
Disciplinary Authority had arrived at the finding against the
petitioner.
28. The third is the order of the Director General
of Police, Bihar contained in Memo No.718 dated 24.11.2022.
Its operative portion reads thus:-
“……leh{kksijkUr iqfyl eq[;ky; ds i= laÃ¥&582/ihÃ¥&1] fnÃ¥&23-
09-2022 }kjk vipkjh Jh foosdkuUn flag ls ltk esa o`f) ds fo:)
cpko Li”Vhdj.k lefiZr djus dk funs’k fn;k x;kA mä ds vkyksd esa
vipkjh Jh flag }kjk fnÃ¥&10-10-2022 dks Li”Vhdj.k lefiZr fd;k
x;k] ftlds leh{kksijkUr ik;k x;k fd Li”Vhdj.k esa dksbZ u;k rF;
çLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vipkjh ds fo:) yxk;k x;k vkjksi xaHkhj
ç–fr dk gSA vuq’kklfud çkf/kdkj }kjk nh x;h ltk vkjksi dh rqyuk
esa cgqr de gSAvr% lHkh rF;ksa ij fopkj djrs gq;s fcgkj iqfyl gLrd ds fu;e 853
v ¼d½ ds rgr leh{kksijkUr Jh foosdkuUn flag] iqfyl fujh{kd
lg&rRdkyhu ifjpkjh çoj] iqfyl dsUæ] dfVgkj lEçfr iwf.kZ;k ftyk
cy dks muds fo:) lapkfyr dfVgkj ftyk foHkkxh; tk¡p ¼dk;Zokgh½
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
19/33laÃ¥&08/2021 esa yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds fy;s nks”kh ikrs gq;s fuEu çdkj
ls n.M vf/kjksfir fd;k tkrk gS :&i- dfVgkj ftyk foHkkxh; tk¡p ¼dk;Zokgh½ laå&08 /2021 esa
vuq’kklfud çkf/kdkj lg&iqfyl egkfujh{kd] iwf.kZ;k {ks=]
iwf.kZ;k ds iwf.kZ;k {ks=kns’k laÃ¥&84 /2022 lg
Kkikad&484/lkåçå] fnÃ¥&06-04-2022 }kjk ikfjr naMkns’k dks
fujLr fd;k tkrk gSAii- vipkjh Jh foosdkuUn flag] iqfyl fujh{kd dks 04 ¼pkj½
o”kksaZ ds fy;s iqfyl voj fujh{kd ds in ij lap;kRed :i ls
çR;korZu dh ltk nh tkrh gSA”
29. A bare reading of the aforesaid order makes
it evident that the Director General of Police, while setting aside
the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority and
while enhancing it into the major punishment of reversion for
four years with cumulative effect, has assigned no independent
reasons of his own, either for disagreeing with the exonerating
report of the Enquiry Authority, or for differing with the
assessment of punishment made by the Disciplinary Authority.
The entire discussion of the detailed representation filed by the
petitioner is compressed into a single sentence, that the
petitioner did not present any new fact.
30. The first question which arises for
consideration is whether the Disciplinary Authority-cum-
Inspector General of Police, Purnia Range could have differed
with the exoneration recorded by the Enquiry Authority in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
20/33
manner in which he did. The answer must proceed from Rule
18(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which reads thus:-
“(2) The disciplinary authority, after receipt of
the enquiry report as per rule 17(23)(ii) or
as per sub-rule (t), shall, if it disagrees
with the findings of the inquiring authority
on any article of charge, record its reasons
for such disagreement and record its own
finding on such charge, if the evidences on
record is sufficient for the purpose.”
31. Rule 9(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 is in pari materia with
Rule 18(2) of the Rules of 2005. Construing the said rule, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr., reported as (1999) 7 SCC 739, in
paragraph no.29, has held as follows:-
“29. We have already extracted Rule 9(2) of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1979 which enables the
disciplinary authority to disagree with the
findings of the enquiring authority on any
article of charge. The only requirement is
that it shall record its reasoning for such
disagreement. The rule does not
specifically provide that before recording
its own findings, the disciplinary authority
will give an opportunity of hearing to a
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
21/33delinquent officer. But the requirement of
“hearing” in consonance with the
principles of natural justice even at that
stage has to be read into Rule 9(2) and it
has to be held that before the disciplinary
authority finally disagrees with the
findings of the enquiring authority, it
would give an opportunity of hearing to
the delinquent officer so that he may have
the opportunity to indicate that the
findings recorded by the enquiring
authority do not suffer from any error and
that there was no occasion to take a
different view. The disciplinary authority,
at the same time, has to communicate to
the delinquent officer the “TENTATIVE”
reasons for disagreeing with the findings
of the enquiring authority so that the
delinquent officer may further indicate that
the reasons on the basis of which the
disciplinary authority proposes to disagree
with the findings recorded by the enquiring
authority are not germane and the finding
of “not guilty” already recorded by the
enquiring authority was not liable to be
interfered with.”
32. The three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj
Behari Misra, reported as (1998) 7 SCC 84 has held that when
the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the
disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions,
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
22/33
the authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer
must give him an opportunity of being heard, for otherwise he
would be condemned unheard and that it would be most unfair
and iniquitous that, where the charged officer has succeeded
before the enquiry officer, he should be deprived of representing
to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the
enquiry officer’s report and, while recording a finding of guilt,
imposes punishment on the officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Kunj Behari Misra (Supra) has held as under:-
“19. The result of the aforesaid discussion
would be that the principles of natural
justice have to be read into Regulation
7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the
disciplinary authority disagrees with the
enquiring authority on any article of
charge, then before it records its own
findings on such charge, it must record its
tentative reasons for such disagreement
and give to the delinquent officer an
opportunity to represent before it records
its findings. The report of the enquiring
officer containing its findings will have to
be conveyed and the delinquent officer will
have an opportunity to persuade the
disciplinary authority to accept the
favourable conclusion of the enquiring
officer. The principles of natural justice, as
we have already observed, require the
authority which has to take a final decision
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
23/33and can impose a penalty, to give an
opportunity to the officer charged of
misconduct to file a representation before
the disciplinary authority records its
findings on the charges framed against the
officer.”
33. This view has been consistently reiterated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in State Bank of India &
Ors. v. K.P. Narayanan Kutty, reported as (2003) 2 SCC 449;
J.A. Naiksatam v. Prothonotary and Senior Master, High
Court of Bombay & Ors., reported as (2004) 8 SCC 653 = AIR
2005 SC 1218; P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India & Ors.,
reported as (2006) 8 SCC 776; Lav Nigam v. Chairman & MD,
ITI Ltd. & Anr., reported as (2006) 9 SCC 440; S.P. Malhotra
v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., reported as (2013) 7 SCC
251. From the conspectus it is evident that, a finding of guilt
recorded in disagreement with an exonerating enquiry report,
without communicating to the delinquent the reasons for the
proposed disagreement and without affording him an
opportunity of hearing, patently violates the principles of natural
justice and cannot be sustained. This Court has consistently
applied the aforesaid principles, and in particular Rule 18(2) of
the Rules of 2005, to quash punishments imposed upon
Government servants after an unreasoned disagreement with an
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
24/33
exonerating enquiry report in Kusum Kumari v. State of Bihar
& Ors., CWJC No.16582 of 2024 (decided on 21.11.2025).
34. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid settled
position, the order contained in Memo No.484 dated 06.04.2022
cannot be sustained. The Enquiry Authority had exonerated the
petitioner on a reasoned appraisal of the documents and the
depositions. The Disciplinary Authority nowhere recorded,
much less communicated to the petitioner, any tentative reasons
of disagreement. The enquiry report was never furnished to the
petitioner, which independently offends the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Mohd.
Ramzan Khan, reported as (1991) 1 SCC 588 and the decision
of the Hon’ble Constitution Bench in Managing Director,
ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors., reported as
(1993) 4 SCC 727. No opportunity of hearing on the proposed
disagreement was afforded before the petitioner was held
partially guilty and awarded the punishment of censure. The
prejudice to the petitioner is writ large. Pertinently, the report
was in his favour, and he was condemned unheard on the very
material on which he had earlier succeeded. The finding of
partial guilt recorded in Memo No.484 dated 06.04.2022 is,
therefore, vitiated for violation of Rule 18(2) of the Rules of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
25/33
2005 and of the principles of natural justice.
35. The next question is whether the order of the
Director General of Police contained in Memo No.718 dated
24.11.2022 can survive. Even on the assumption that Rule 853A
of the Bihar Police Manual clothes the Director General of
Police with a power of suo motu review, the exercise of such
power is quasi-judicial in character. A fortiori, when the
revisional authority proposes to differ both with the exonerating
report of the Enquiry Authority and with the assessment of
punishment made by the Disciplinary Authority, and that too to
the serious prejudice of the delinquent, the obligation to disclose
the grounds, to consider the defence, and to record independent
reasons applies with even greater rigour. The impugned order
fails on every one of these counts.
36. First, the show-cause notice dated
23.09.2022 did not disclose any ground of proposed
disagreement, either with the exonerating enquiry report or with
the order of the Disciplinary Authority. It merely conveyed that
the punishment had been found low and that it had been decided
to review the matter. A show-cause notice which conveys a
concluded decision and withholds the grounds on which the
noticee must defend himself does not commence a fair
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
26/33
procedure. In Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India
& Ors., reported as (2010) 13 SCC 427, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that if, on a reasonable reading of a show-cause
notice, a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his
reply will be an empty ceremony and that he will merely knock
his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion,
such a notice does not commence a fair procedure, and that the
authority must manifestly keep an open mind.
37. Secondly, the final order rejects the detailed
representation dated 10.10.2022 filed by the petitioner, with the
solitary observation that it presented no new fact, without
adverting to a single contention raised therein. An authority
exercising quasi-judicial power is obliged to deal with the
defence by supplying cogent reasons as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the decisions of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of
India, reported as (1990) 4 SCC 594; Kranti Associates Private
Limited & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., reported as
(2010) 9 SCC 496. In Ananjay Singh @ Ananjay Kumar Singh
v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No.7906 of 2020 (decided on
06.01.2021), this Court set aside an order of the Director
General of Police passed in purported exercise of the power
under Rule 853A(a) for the precise reason that there was
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
27/33
absolutely no discussion in the impugned order on the
petitioner’s representation in response to the show-cause notice,
and the order did not mention why the explanation was not
acceptable. In Kusum Kumari (supra), this Court held that a
revisional order rejecting the employee’s representation on the
bald recital that no new fact had been presented is
unsustainable. The instant impugned order suffers from the
same fatal vice. In the facts of the present case, the order passed
by the respondent authorities cannot be sustained. The
petitioner stood exonerated and there was no onus upon him to
produce any new fact. The burden lay upon the revisional
authority to demonstrate, by independent reasons, why the
exoneration recorded by the Enquiry Authority and the
assessment of punishment made by the Disciplinary Authority
were unsustainable. By demanding novelty from the petitioner
instead of supplying reasons of its own, the authority inverted
the very enquiry which the law required of it.
38. Thirdly, and most significantly, the
impugned order records no independent reasons whatsoever for
disagreeing either with the exoneration recorded by the Enquiry
Authority or with the punishment assessed by the Disciplinary
Authority. On the contrary, the order faithfully recites the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
28/33
findings of the Enquiry Authority including the finding that the
nomination sent from the district bore the remark “not
recommended” and that the petitioner was on deputation at the
Police Headquarters when the district order recording the
promotion was issued and yet, without displacing any of those
findings, proceeds to describe the charge as grave and to
enhance a minor penalty of censure into the major penalty of a
four-year cumulative reversion, on the identical record on which
the statutory enquiry had exonerated the petitioner. In Bhola
Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No.7478 of
2023 (decided on 10.12.2025), this Court, dealing with a
materially identical exercise of the power under Rule 853A(a),
quashed both the underlying punishment and the order of
enhancement, holding that a quasi-judicial authority cannot
revise and substitute a punishment with a much harsher one with
a pre-determined mindset, and that a perusal of the order of
enhancement itself disclosed no material which could have
justified the imposition of the punishment, much less its
enhancement. The present case stands on an even stronger
footing than that of Bhola Kumar Singh (supra), because here
the enquiry had wholly exonerated the petitioner.
39. Once it is found, that the finding of partial
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
29/33
guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority on 06.04.2022 is
void for breach of Rule 18(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules of 2005
and of the principles of natural justice, the entire superstructure
erected upon it including the order of enhancement dated
24.11.2022, which presupposes a valid finding of guilt, and the
consequential district order must fall along with it, on the
principle sublato fundamento cadit opus that is, foundation
being removed, the structure falls.
40. In view of the conclusions recorded above,
on the anvil of the principles of natural justice alone, the
impugned orders cannot survive.
41. The only surviving question is whether the
matter should be remitted to the authorities for a fresh exercise.
In the considered view of this Court, no useful purpose would
be served by doing so. Two considerations weigh with this
Court. First, the vice found in the present case does not lie in
the enquiry, which was lawfully conducted and culminated in
the exoneration of the petitioner, it lies in the orders erected
upon that enquiry. Upon the said orders being set aside, what
survives is a concluded enquiry in favour of the petitioner, and
there remains no adverse finding to remit. Secondly, in P.V.
Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, reported as
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
30/33
(2005) 6 SCC 636, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated
the continuance of disciplinary proceedings against a
Government servant after inordinate delay. Permitting a fresh
round of proceedings now, a decade after the event of the year
2016 and on the eve of the petitioner’s superannuation, when the
punishment has already remained in operation since 06.12.2022,
would inflict the very injustice which the jurisdiction of this
Court exists to prevent. The only statutory enquiry held in the
matter has exonerated the petitioner and the charge relates to an
event of the year 2016. Further the proceeding itself was
initiated more than four years thereafter. The punishment of
reversion has remained in operation since 06.12.2022 and the
petitioner is due to superannuate on 31.08.2027. In Anish
Kumar Mishra (supra), this Court declined to remand in
comparable circumstances. Relegating the petitioner, at the fag
end of his service, to yet another round of proceedings arising
out of a stale charge would perpetuate, rather than remedy, the
injustice.
42. The finding of partial guilt was recorded in
disagreement with an exonerating enquiry report without any
tentative reasons of disagreement being recorded or
communicated, the enquiry report itself was never furnished to
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
31/33
the petitioner, the show-cause notice which preceded the review
disclosed no grounds upon which the petitioner could defend
himself and the order of enhancement recorded no independent
reasons of its own while dismissing the petitioner’s defence with
the bald recital that it presented no new fact. Each of these
infirmities is, by itself, fatal to the orders impugned. For the
reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court finds the order
contained in Memo No.484 dated 06.04.2022 passed by the
Inspector General of Police, Purnia Range, holding the
petitioner partially guilty and inflicting the punishment of
censure in disagreement with the exonerating report of the
Enquiry Authority, without recording or communicating any
tentative reasons of disagreement, without furnishing the
enquiry report and without affording any opportunity of hearing,
to be vitiated for violation of Rule 18(2) of the Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 2005 and of the principles of natural justice.
43. Further the order contained in Memo No.718
dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Director General of Police,
Bihar in purported exercise of the power under Rule 853A of the
Bihar Police Manual is unsustainable, being founded upon a
void finding of guilt, having been preceded by a show-cause
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
32/33
notice which disclosed no grounds, having rejected the
representation of the petitioner without consideration and
having recorded no independent reasons for disagreeing either
with the enquiry report or with the order of the Disciplinary
Authority. The consequential order contained in Memo No.5190
dated 06.12.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Purnia
must fall along with it.
44. Accordingly, the order contained in Memo
No.484 dated 06.04.2022 issued by the Inspector General of
Police, Purnia Range, Purnia, the order contained in Memo
No.718 dated 24.11.2022 issued by the Director General of
Police, Bihar, Patna, and the consequential order contained in
Memo No.5190 dated 06.12.2022 issued by the Superintendent
of Police, Purnia are hereby quashed and set aside.
45. As a necessary consequence, the respondents
are directed to restore the petitioner to the post of Police
Inspector forthwith, with all consequential benefits in
accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment, having
regard to the fact that the petitioner is due to superannuate on
31.08.2027.
46. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6859 of 2023 dt.24-07-2026
33/33
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed
of.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 24.04.2026 Uploading Date 31.07.2026 Transmission Date N/A
