Patna High Court
Pradip Kumar Pandit vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1051 of 2025
======================================================
Pradip Kumar Pandit, Son of Late Shakti Nath Pandit Resident of Ward No.-
25, Mohalla- Sameer Nagar, Post- Sarvodaynagar, Near Koshi College, P.S.-
Khagaria, District- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of General Administration,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger.
4. The District Magistrate, Khagaria.
5. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Gogri, District- Khagaria.
6. The Senior Deputy Collector-cum- Enquiry Conducting Officer, Khagaria
Collectorate, Khagaria.
7. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Nayan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anant Prasad Singh, SC-15
Ms. Deepika Sharma, AC to SC-15
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 19-02-2026
1. The petitioner was an Upper Division Clerk in
the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Gogri, Khagaria. On the
charge of misconduct, he was subjected to departmental
enquiry and dismissed from service vide Memo No. 152,
dated 20th of March, 2015. The petitioner also filed a
departmental appeal, which was also dismissed on 5 th of
December, 2015. Against the order of dismissal, the
petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
2/17
the Respondent No. 3 vide order, dated 3rd of October, 2024.
2. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid
orders by filing the instant application under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
3. It is pertinent to mention that on the basis of a
complaint, filed by one Aditya Kumar before the
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance on 15th of April, 2014, a
Vigilance Case No. 33 of 2014 was instituted and the
petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance Department while
accepting bribe from the complainant for discharging his
official duties. On account of registration of a criminal case
against the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was also
initiated vide Memo No. 397, dated 26th of July, 2014 and
memorandum of charge was served against him on 13 th of
August, 2014.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the
departmental proceeding, the Presenting Officer failed to
produce any witness against the petitioner. Though the
memorandum of charge was not proved against him in
accordance with the provisions contained in Bihar
Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “CCA Rules” for
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
3/17
short) as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on
12th of December, 2014, holding the petitioner guilty of the
departmental charges. On the basis of such perfunctory
enquiry report, the petitioner was directed to file second
show-cause. He submitted his reply to the show-cause before
the District Magistrate, Khagaria, but the District Magistrate
vide his order, dated 20th of March, 2015, dismissed the
petitioner without adhering to the basic principles of
departmental proceedings, contained in CCA Rules and the
principles, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Against
the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed a writ petition,
bearing, C.W.J.C. No. 4380 of 2016 before this Court. By an
order, dated 28th of June, 2023, the aforesaid writ petition
was allowed, on contest. The order of dismissal from service
passed against the petitioner was set aside and the matter was
remitted back to the Respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order
in accordance with law.
5. The Respondent No. 3 again passed the similar
order of dismissal of the petitioner from service without
considering the fact that the order of dismissal was passed by
the District Magistrate, Khagaria, though no charge was
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
4/17
proved against him. The Presenting Officer failed to produce
any witness in order to prove the alleged misconduct during
enquiry proceeding. Only on the basis of a purported
complaint and a charge-sheet, the petitioner was held guilty,
which is against the provisions contained in CCA Rules.
6. The Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 have filed a
counter affidavit, alleging all material allegations made by
the petitioner against the departmental proceeding,
challenging the order of termination of the petitioner from
his service.
7. It is specifically stated by the respondents that
the petitioner was caught red-handed by a team of Vigilance
Department while taking bribe on 15 th of May, 2014.
Accordingly, Vigilance P. S. Case No. 33 of 2014, dated 15th
of May, 2014 was registered against the petitioner. Before he
was caught red-handed by the officers and staff of Vigilance
Investigation Bureau, one Aditya Kumar lodged a complaint
against the petitioner that he demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000/-
for an official job. After he was arrested, the petitioner was
suspended under Rule 9(2)(a) of the CCA Rules. The
suspension order was followed by a departmental proceeding
and the petitioner was finally dismissed from his service by
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
5/17
the District Magistrate, Khagaria vide order dated 20th of
March, 2015. The said order was affirmed in Service Appeal
No. 8 of 2015by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger on
15th of December, 2015.
8. It is submitted by the contesting respondents
that the petitioner previously filed C.W.J.C. No. 4380 of
2016, which was disposed of on 28th of June, 2023, holding
inter alia, that the Appellate Authority did not pass the order
in terms of Rule 27 of Bihar Government Servant
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and the
impugned order was not a speaking order. Therefore, the said
order was set aside with a direction to revisit to the
petitioner’s memorandum of appeal and to pass a fresh order.
In compliance of the order passed by the Writ Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 4380 of 2016, the Divisional Commissioner,
Munger again examined the defence put fowarrd by the
appellant and the evidence available on record, including the
report submitted by the disciplinary authority and it was
found that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to
present his case in course of departmental proceeding and
also in appeal. Therefore, on further consideration of the
appeal, the petitioner was again dismissed from service.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
6/17
9. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the said
counter affidavit reiterating the same allegations as made out
in the writ petition.
10. The petitioner has also filed I. A. No. 1 of
2025, stating, inter alia, that during pendency of the instant
writ petition, the case instituted by the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau and registered as Special Vigilance
Case No. 44 of 2014 (State v. Pradip Kumar Pandit) ended in
acquittal of the petitioner vide judgement dated 4th of
September, 2025.
11. These are all about the pleadings of the parties.
12. This Court has heard the learned Advocates on
behalf of the petitioner and the Respondents.
13. This Court has also perused the documents
filed by the respective parties in the form of annexures with
their pleadings.
14. It is needless to say that charge(s) in a
departmental proceeding is to be proved on the principle of
preponderance of probability. Strict proof of the charge is not
warranted. The departmental proceeding is carried out on the
basic principles of rule of natural justice. A delinquent
employee cannot be punished without following proper
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
7/17
procedure of enquiry taking into consideration the materials
brought on record. It is not in dispute that in the instant case
during the departmental enquiry, no witness was examined to
prove the charge against the charged employee. The
petitioner was terminated from service because of the fact
that he was arrested by Vigilance Investigation Bureau on
the allegation that he was taking bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from
the complainant in order to discharge his official duties and a
case under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act was registered against him. Mere arrest of a person on
the allegation of taking bribe by the Police Authority does
not prove the charge of misconduct. It is the bounden duty of
the Enquiry Officer to examine the witnesses in order to
prove the charge of misconduct. The complaint made against
the petitioner was required to be brought on record along
with the documents relating to investigation, and finally the
charge-sheet filed by the police against the petitioner.
15. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank,
reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that the purported evidence collected during the
investigation by the Investigating Officer against the accused
by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
8/17
disciplinary proceeding. In the instant case, no witness was
examined to prove the said documents. In Roop Singh Negi
(supra), the witnesses on behalf of the management at least
tendered the documents before the Enquiry Officer but did
not prove the contents thereof. Under the aforesaid
circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to
quash the departmental proceeding. In the instant case, even
the documents intended to be relied upon by the respondent
authority against the petitioner was not even tendered by
examining any witnesses.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., reported
in (1999) 2 SCC 10 was pleased to observe that the Court
cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the disciplinary
authority and assume the role of Appellate Authority. But
this does not mean that in no circumstance can the Court
interfere. The power of judicial review available to the High
Court as also to the Apex Court under the Constitution takes
in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere
with the conclusions reached therein, if there was no
evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded
were such, as could not have been reached by an ordinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
9/17
prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the
dictate of the superior authority.
17. In the instant case, this Court finds that the
Presenting Officer did not perform his duty by presenting the
case of the department before the Enquiry Officer and, prima
facie, it seems that the Enquiry Officer himself assumed the
role of Presenting Officer. The Court on number of occasions
highlighted the role of the Presenting Officer vis a vis the
Enquiry Officer. Reliance may be made in this regard to the
decisions in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar
Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 and Panchanan
Kumar v. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.,
reported in (1996) 1 PLJR 401.
18. In Radhey Krishna Singh v. The State of
Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 9533 of 2023, this Court vide
judgement, dated 11.07.2024 under the identical facts and
circumstances of this case, relying on the above-stated
decisions as well as the decisions of this Court in Vijendra
Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2019 (4)
PLJR 1046 and Arun Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.,
reported in 2019 (3) BLJ 221, quashed the order of
punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
10/17
by the Appellate Authority.
19. It would not be out of place to mention that
during pendency of the instant writ petition, the criminal
case instituted against the accused ended in acquittal, as the
prosecution failed to bring home the charge of corruption
under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
20. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner
refers to the said fact by filing an Interlocutory Application,
bearing I.A. No. 1 of 2025.
21. The learned Advocate on behalf of the
respondents, on the other hand, submits that the standard of
proof in a departmental proceeding is not similar with that of
the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the employer. It is
settled principle of law that burden lies upon the prosecution
in a criminal trial to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
However, in a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the
department is limited and it is required to prove its case on
the principle of preponderance of probability.
22. In support of his contention, he refers to a case
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v.
Pradip Kumar Banerjee, reported in 2025 INSC 149.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
11/17
23. The learned counsel for the respondents also
refers to the case of Union of India & Ors. v. P.
Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, while making
submission as to the scope of the High Courts’ jurisdiction
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power of High Courts
is limited to consider the proportionality of punishment so
long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the
Court. When it is found that the disciplinary authority came
to the conclusion that the delinquent employee lacks
integrity, moral uprightness and honesty, it is within the
domain of the disciplinary authority to terminate his service.
Under such circumstances, it is even not open to the High
Court to go into the proportionality of punishment or
substitute the same with a lesser or different punishment. On
the same issue, the learned Advocate on behalf of the
respondents refers to the decision in the case of The
Karnataka Lokayuktha Bagalkote District, Bagalkot v.
Chandrashekar & Anr., reported in 2026 INSC 31 and State
Bank of India & Ors. v. P. Zadenga, Civil Appeal No. 2518
of 2012, decided on 3rd of October, 2023.
24. Having heard the submissions made by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
12/17
learned counsels on behalf of the parties and upon careful
consideration of the decisions referred to by the learned
counsels, this Court intends to record, at the outset, that the
jurisprudence with regard to the standard of proof in a
departmental proceeding and a criminal trial is no longer res
integra. It is a settled principle of law that in a departmental
proceeding, the standard of proof is based on
“preponderance of probability”, while in a criminal trial, it is
“proved beyond all reasonable doubts”. “Preponderance of
probability refers to the greater likelihood of one event or
other over another”. In order to proof, a departmental charge
on the principle of preponderance of probability, it is the
bounden duty of the disciplinary authority to take resort to
the standard of proof where alleged guilt of the delinquent
employee is found to be more probable than his innocence.
This rule of probability can only be proved by producing
satisfactory evidence.
25. In the instant case, Inquiry Officer submitted
his report on the ground that the delinquent employee was
arrested allegedly while taking bribe. The said fact has not
been brought in evidence during departmental enquiry. The
delinquent employee did not get any opportunity to cross-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
13/17
examine any witness as the department did not produce any
witness to prove the charge against him.
26. In Airports Authority of India (supra), P.
Gunasekaran (supra) and The Karnataka Lokayuktha
Bagalkote District, Bagalkot (supra), the employer produced
evidence during departmental enquiry to prove the charge
against the charged officer on the basis of the available
evidence and thereafter the authority held the charged officer
guilty of gross misconduct and passed an order of
termination.
27. Under such factual background, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court did not want to interfere against the order of
punishment passed by the concerned employer against the
delinquent employee.
28. In the instant case, on the contrary, no
evidence was produced during inquiry to prove the charge of
misconduct against the delinquent employee, even on the
principle of preponderance of probability.
29. It is true that in Nelson Motis v. Union of
India reported in (1992) 4 SCC 711, it was observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that the question whether the
departmental proceeding could have continued in the face of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
14/17
acquittal in criminal proceedings, had no force as “the nature
and scope of a criminal case are very different from those of
a department disciplinary proceeding and an order of
acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental
proceeding”.
30. In Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn.
Ltd. v. C. Nagaraju, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 367, it was
observed in paragraph no. 9 of the report as hereunder:-
“9. Acquittal by a criminal
court would not debar an employer
from exercising the power to conduct
departmental proceedings in
accordance with the rules and
regulations. The two proceedings,
criminal and departmental, are
entirely different. They operate in
different fields and have different
objectives. [Ajit Kumar
Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,
(2005) 7 SCC 764 : 2005 SCC (L&S)
1020] In the disciplinary
proceedings, the question is whether
the respondent is guilty of such
conduct as would merit his removal
from service or a lesser punishment,
as the case may be, whereas in the
criminal proceedings, the question is
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
15/17whether the offences registered
against him under the PC Act are
established, and if established, what
sentence should be imposed upon
him. The standard of proof, the mode
of inquiry and the rules governing
inquiry and trial in both the cases
are significantly distinct and
different.”
31. A close perusal of the principle, laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, suggests that probity of a charge
in a criminal case and a departmental proceeding depends on
different parameters and different rules and regulations,
while the cardinal axiom of criminal trial is that the charges
are to be proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, the
departmental proceeding is governed by the respective
classification, control and appeal rules, where departmental
charge is required to be proved on preponderance of
probability.
32. However, in both the cases, it is the duty of the
prosecution and the disciplinary authority to produce
evidence against the accused/delinquent employee and
without production of evidence and giving opportunity to the
delinquent employee to cross-examine the witnesses, a
charge cannot be said to be proved.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
16/17
33. In the instant case, the Inquiry Officer held the
petitioner guilty on the basis of the charge memo where it
was alleged that he was arrested by the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau while taking bribe. No witness was
examined to prove the said charge. The petitioner did not get
any opportunity to controvert the same charge. On the
contrary in criminal trial where the petitioner got the
opportunity to controvert the allegation made out against him
by the complainant, the charge of corruption against the
delinquent employee fell flat and he was acquitted.
34. This Court is conscious that the order of
acquittal does not exonerate the delinquent employee from
departmental charges but when the order of acquittal is
passed on the ground that the prosecution hopelessly failed
to bring home the charge against the accused and on the
identical charge, a departmental inquiry was conducted and
he was held guilty and terminated from his service, the
judgement and order of acquittal can be looked into as a
piece of evidence on the principle of preponderance of
probability.
35. In the instant case, coupled with the fact that
the departmental charge was not proved by the employer
Patna High Court CWJC No.1051 of 2025 dt. 19-02-2026
17/17
adducing satisfactory evidence and the order of acquittal in
criminal trial on the similar and identical charge, can be
accepted as a strong piece of evidence on the principle of
preponderance of probability, this Court does not have any
other alternative but to allow the instant writ petition.
36. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is
allowed.
37. The order passed by the Respondent No. 4,
vide Memo No. 152, dated 20th of March, 2015 and the order
passed by the Respondent No. 3, vide Memo No. 6967,
dated dated 3rd of October, 2024, are quashed and set aside.
38. The petitioner be reinstated in service, if not
attains the age of superannuation, and all monetary benefits
as well as consequential reliefs be granted to the petitioner
within a period of three months from the date of
communication/receipt of a copy of this order.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
skm/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 02.02.2026 Uploading Date 19.02.2026 Transmission Date N/A
