Patna High Court
Gopal Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 12 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4433 of 2023
======================================================
Gopal Kumar Mahto S/o Tulsi Lal Mahto, Resident of Village - Pathar Tola,
P.S. - Kursaila, Dist. - Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. D.G. of Police Bihar, Patna.
3. D.I.G. Rail Bihar, Patna.
4. S.P. Rail Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad (SC-8)
Mr. Sanjay Kumar AC to SC-8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
"That this is an application for issuance of
an appropriate writ order or direction for
quashing S.P. Rail Katihar memo no.
1516/Ra.Ka. Dated 26-11-2020 whereby he
has been dismissed the petitioner in Rail
district Katihar constable no.-113 from
service i.e. annexure- 9 and for quashing
memo no.-221/Go. Dated 16-03-2021
passed by DIG Rail Bihar Patna whereby
appeal of the petitioner has been rejected
i.e. annexure-11 and for quashing letter no.-
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
2/18
P-3/13-07-18/2022/426 dated 18-07-2022
whereby memorial of the petitioner has been
rejected by the D.G. of Police Patna i.e.
Annexure-13 and for grant of all
consequential benefits or for any other
order or orders which this Hon'ble may
deem fit and proper under the circumstances
of this case."
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner
was appointed as a Constable in 2012 and was posted in Rail
District Katihar as a Constable and Deputed in Rail P.S.
Kishanganj. A complaint was made against him on the basis of
the self-statement of Inspector Rajan Kumar Singh, SHO Town
P.S. Katihar to the effect that the petitioner has been caught with
Heroin and on the basis of the said statement Katihar Town P.S.
Case No. 146/2020 dated 21.02.2020 under Sections 8(c)/21(c)
of the NDPS Act was instituted against the petitioner and he was
arrested and set to jail on 22.02.2020.
4. During course of investigation 5.326 Kg of
Ganja was recovered from the residence of the petitioner and
on the basis of the said seizure Kishanganj Rail P.S. Case No. 09
of 2020 dated 22.02.2022 was instituted against the petitioner
under Section 20/22 of the NDPS Act. On the basis of the above
mentioned First Information Report lodged against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
3/18
petitioner vide Memo No. 515 dated 20.04.2020 issued under
the signature of the Superintendent of Police Rail, Katihar
charge Memo was served upon the petitioner, while he was in
jail and departmental proceeding was initiated and appointed.
Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer were list of
witnesses was also annexed with the charge memo.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that before issuance of the charge Memo no show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner that why departmental
proceeding be not initiated against him. However, on the basis
of the above mentioned charge memo, petitioner filed his show
cause reply before the Superintendent of Police, Rail, Katihar
whereby he denied all the charges levelled against him.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that thereafter a departmental enquiry was
conducted against the petitioner while he was in jail, however,
he cross-examined the witnesses produced on behalf of the
Presenting Officer, from Jail itself. It is case of the petitioner
that entire departmental proceeding was conducted in violation
of the principles of natural justice and the provisions contained
in Rules 17 (3) and 17(4) of the Bihar Government Servants
(CCS) Rules, 2005.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
4/18
7. The petitioner submitted an application before
the Enquiry Officer on 31.07.2020 from jail itself wherein he
requested the enquiry officer to grant him permission to
examine defence witnesses named therein. He also requested the
enquiry officer to keep the same in abeyance in view of Rule,
847 of the Bihar Police Manual, but unfortunately the request
made by the petitioner was not accepted by the enquiry officer,
which is in complete of the provisions contained in Rule, 17(7)
of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005. The
enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry submitted his
enquiry report before the disciplinary authority on 25.08.2020,
thereafter vide Memo No. 1196 dated 14.09.2020 issued under
the signature the Superintendent of Police, Rail, Katihar, the
petitioner was issued second show cause notice through the Jail
Superintendent of Katihar, Jail and in compliance thereof, the
petitioner submitted his show cause reply through the jail
Superintendent, Katihar Jail.
8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the disciplinary authority without considering
the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner and without
considering the fact that no opportunity to adduce defence
evidence was granted to the petitioner, proceeded to pass the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
5/18
impugned order of the punishment, whereby the petitioner has
been dismissed from service w.e.f. 27.11.2020 and it was further
mentioned that for the period under suspension i.e. 22.02.2020
and 26.11.2020 the petitioner will not be paid anything, apart
from what has been paid to him. It was further directed that the
period of suspension will be adjusted as half earned leave.
Being aggrieved with the order passed by the disciplinary
authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate
authority, wherein he raised all his defence, but the appellate
authority without considering the grounds taken by the
petitioner in his memo of appeal, proceeded to reject the appeal
filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred
Memorial before the Director General of Police, but the same
was also rejected, in mechanical manner, without considering
the defence taken by the petitioner in the Memorial application,
by the Director General General of Police, Bihar, Patna vide his
order contained in Memo No. 426 dated 18.07.2022.
9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
State, wherein it has been stated that the departmental
proceeding was conducted as per rule and the petitioner also
cross-examined the witnesses properly, thereby there is no
question of violation of principles of natural justice. It has
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
6/18
further been submitted that during course of the departmental
proceeding the petitioner was directed to file his last explanation
in his defence and for this several letters were issued to him by
the Presenting Officer but he did not reply to the letters and for
delaying the proceeding the petitioner intentionally filed a
petition dated 31.07.2020, to cross-examine those witnesses
who were not made witnesses in the departmental proceeding.
After proper enquiry, the petitioner was found guilt by the
Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was asked to file show cause
reply by the disciplinary authority, whereafter, the same was
duly considered and finally by the impugned order, the
petitioner was dismissed from service.
10. It has further been submitted by the learned
counsel for the State that while the petitioner was posted at
Muzaffarpur, departmental proceeding No. 10/17 and 47/17
were started against him in which he was found guilty and his
one increment was withheld in departmental proceeding No.
10/17 and three increment was withheld in departmental
proceeding No. 47/17 by the SRP, Muzaffarpur, due to his bad
conduct in service. Further, at the same place his pay of two
days was also withheld by the SRP, Muzaffarpur, on account of
petitioner being absent from duty without any information, but
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
7/18
the salary was later on released on sympathetic ground.
11. The learned counsel for the State further submit
that section 27 of the evidence Act clearly speaks "provided
that, when any fact is disposed to as discovered in consequence
of information received from a person accused of any offence in
custody of a Police officer so much of such information whether
it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the fact
thoroughly discovered, may be proved". It has further been
submitted that the petitioner was made accused in Katihar town
P.S. Case No. 146/2020 and Kishanhganj Rail P.S. Case No. 09
of 2020. Further witnesses are required in the departmental
proceeding to prove the charges against the delinquent and the
witnesses and material available during enquiry were sufficient
to prove charge, therefore, some witnesses were not produced
and further not only supervision report, but other material
evidences were also sufficient to prove charge against the
petitioner. The learned State counsel further submits that the
departmental proceeding is conducted for enforcing discipline
and his based on preponderance of probability, while criminal
case is based on strict proof of law to penalise the offender.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply
submits that the departmental enquiry was conducted against
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
8/18
principles of natural justice, 2005, Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA
Rules and Appendix 49 of the Bihar Police Manual, therefore,
enquiry report is per say illegal and since the petitioner was in
jail at the relevant time, the departmental proceeding was not
conducted properly. It has further been submitted that petitioner
has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him in relation
to Katihar Town P.S. Case No. 146/20 which resulted in special
NDPS Case No. 04/2020, wherein vide judgment dated
13.01.2023
, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- IV,
Katihar, the petitioner was found not guilty for committing any
offence punishable under Section 22 (C) of the NDPS Act and
was acquitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that acquittal of the petitioner is a clean acquittal. The learned
counsel for the petition further submits that petitioner has also
been acquitted in Special NDPS Case N0. 5 of 2020 arising out
of Kishanganj Rail P.S. Case No. 09 of 2020 by judgment dated
19.08.2023 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge
-IV, Katihar. The above acquittal is also a clean acquittal.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on
a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in
2006 (5) SCC 446 ( G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat & Others.)
wherein in paragraph No. 30, it has been held as follows:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
9/18“30. The judgments relied on by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents are
distinguishable on facts and on law. In this
case, the departmental proceedings and the
criminal case are based on identical and
similar set of facts and the charge in a
departmental case against the appellant
and the charge before the criminal court
are one and the same. It is true that the
nature of charge in the departmental
proceedings and in the criminal case is
grave. The nature of the case launched
against the appellant on the basis of
evidence and material collected against him
during enquiry and investigation and as
reflected in the charge-sheet, factors
mentioned are one and the same. In other
words, charges, evidence, witnesses and
circumstances are one and the same. In the
present case, criminal and departmental
proceedings have already noticed or
granted on the same set of facts, namely,
raid conducted at the appellant’s residence,
recovery of articles therefrom. The
Investigating Officer Mr V.B. Raval and
other departmental witnesses were the only
witnesses examined by the enquiry officer
who by relying upon their statement came
to the conclusion that the charges were
established against the appellant. The same
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
10/18witnesses were examined in the criminal
case and the criminal court on the
examination came to the conclusion that the
prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged
against the appellant beyond any
reasonable doubt and acquitted the
appellant by its judicial pronouncement
with the finding that the charge has not
been proved. It is also to be noticed that the
judicial pronouncement was made after a
regular trial and on hot contest. Under
these circumstances, it would be unjust and
unfair and rather oppressive to allow the
findings recorded in the departmental
proceedings to stand.”
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on
a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in
2024 (1) SCC page 175 Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Others wherein in paragraphs No. 25 to 34, it has been held as
follows:-
“25. With this above background, if we
examine the criminal proceedings the
following factual position emerges. The
very same witnesses, who were examined
in the criminal trial. Jagdish Chandra,
Bhawani Singh, Shravan Lal, Raj Singh and
Karan Sharma were examined as PW 2. PW
3. PW 6. PW 9 and PW 13 respectively at
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
11/18the criminal trial. Apart from them, eight
other witnesses were also examined. The
grave man of the charge in a criminal case
was that the appellant had submitted an
application for recruitment along with his
marksheet and he, by making alteration in
his date of birth to reflect the same as 24-4-
1972 in place of 21-4-1974, and obtained
recruitment to the post of Constable.
26. Though the trial court convicted the
appellant under Section 420 IPC the
appellate court recorded the following
crucial findings while acquitting the
appellant:
“…Mainly the present case was based on
the documents to this effect whether the
date of birth of accused is 21-4-1972 ог 21-
4-1974. Ext. P-3 is original marksheet, in
which, the date of birth of accused has been
shown as 21-4-1972 and same has also
been proved by the witnesses examined on
behalf of the prosecution. Whatever the
documents have been produced before the
court regarding the date of birth of 21-4-
1974 are either the letters of Principal or
are duplicate TC of marksheets. Neither the
prosecution has produced any such original
documents in the subordinate this effect that
when the admission form of the accused
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
12/18was failed, what date of birth was
mentioned by the accused in it, what was
the date of birth in Roll Register of School,
what date of birth was mentioned by
accused in the examination form of
Secondary, and nor after bringing the
original records from the witnesses
concerned, same were got proved in the
evidence. In these circumstances, this fact
becomes doubtful that date of birth of the
accused was 21-4-1974, and the accused is
entitled to receive its benefit. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the
conviction made by the learned subordinate
court merely on the basis of oral evidence
and letters or duplicate documents, is not
just and proper. It is justifiable to acquit the
accused.
Resultantly, on the basis of
aforesaid consideration, the present appeal
filed by the appellant-accused is liable to be
allowed.
27. What is important to notice is that the
Appellate Judge has clearly recorded that
in the document Ext. P-3 standard, the date
of birth was clearly shown as 21-4-1972
and the other original marksheet of the 8th
standard, the date of birth was cleary
shown as 21-4-1972 and the other
documents produced by the prosecution
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
13/18were either letters or a duplicate marksheet.
No doubt, the Appellate Judge says that it
becomes doubtful whether the date of birth
was 21-4-1974 and that the accused was
entitled to receive its benefit. However,
what we are supposed to see is the
substance of the judgment. A reading of the
entire judgment clearly indicates that the
appellant was acquitted after full
consideration of the prosecution evidence
and after noticing that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the charge (see S.
Samuthiram³5.
28. Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and
“honourably acquitted”, used in judgments
are not to be understood as magic
incantations. A court of law will not be
carried away by the mere use of such
terminology. In the present case, the
Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3,
the original marksheet carries the date of
birth as 21-4-1972 and the same has also
been proved by the witnesses examined on
behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion
that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding
was after full consideration of the
prosecution evidence and that the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the
charge can only be arrived at after a
reading of the judgment in its entirety. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
14/18Court in judicial review is obliged to
examine the substance of the judgment and
not go by the form of expression used.
29. We are satisfied that the findings of the
Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly
indicate that the charge against the
appellant was not just, “not proved” in fact
the charge even stood “disproved” by the
very prosecution evidence. As held by this
Court, a fact is said to be “disproved”
when, after considering the matters before
it, the court either believes that it does not
exist or considers its non-existence so
probable that a prudent man ought, under
the circumstances of the particular case, to
act upon the supposition that it does not
exist. A fact is said to be “not proved” when
it is neither proved nor “disproved” (see
Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P.8)
30. We are additionally satisfied that in the
teeth of the finding of the Appellate Judge,
the disciplinary proceedings and the orders
passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand.
The charges were not just similar but
identical and the evidence, witnesses and
circumstances were all the same. This is the
case where in exercise of our discretion
requires the orders of the disciplinary
authority and the appellate authority as
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
15/18
allowing them to stand will be unjust,
unfair and oppressive. This case is very
similar to the situation that arose in where
in exercise of our discretion, we quash the
orders of the disciplinary G.M. Tank6.`
31 Apart from the above, one other aspect
is to be noted. The enquiry officer’s report
makes a reference to the appellant passing
10th standard, and to a 10th standard
marksheet exhibited as Ext. P-4 referring to
the date of birth as 24-7-1974. Jagdish
Chandra PW 1 (in the departmental
enquiry) clearly deposed that since the
appellant was regularly absent from Class
10, his name was struck off and he did not
even pass 10th standard. The appellant has
also come out with this version before the
disciplinary authority, stating that the 10th
class certificate of Ram Lal produced
before the enquiry officer, is of some other
Ram Lal.
32. This issue need not detain us any
further because it is not the case of the
department that the appellant sought
employment based on 10th standard
marksheet. It is their positive case that the
appellant sought employment on the basis
of his 8th standard marksheet. Shravan Lal,
PW 4 in the departmental enquiry had also
furnished the 10th standard marksheet
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
16/18
procured from the Secondary Education
Board, Ajmer. In cross-examination, on
being asked, he admitted that the appellant
was recruited on the basis of 8th standard
marksheet, and he admitted that there was
no alteration in the 8th standard marksheet.
33. In view of the above, we declare that the
order of termination dated 31-3-2004; the
order of the appellate authority dated 8-10-
2004; the orders dated 29-3-2008 and 25-6-
2008 refusing to reconsider and review the
penalty respectively, are all illegal and
untenable.
34. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment
of DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 484 of
2011 dated 5-9-20182. We direct that the
appellant shall be reinstated with all
consequential benefits including seniority,
notional promotions, fitment of salary and
all other benefits. As far as back wages are
concerned, we are inclined to award the
appellant 50% of the back wages. The
directions be complied with within a period
of four weeks from today.”
15. After having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and the documents available on record, I find that
admittedly before issuance of memo of charge no opportunity
was given to the petitioner to file his show cause reply and no
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
17/18
opportunity was given to the petitioner in departmental
proceeding to produce his defence witnesses, although a written
request was made by the petitioner but the same was rejected by
the enquiry officer, which is in complete violations of the
provision contained in Rule 17(17) of the Bihar Government
Servants CCA Rules, 2005. Further it appears that the entire
departmental proceeding was conducted against the petitioner
on the same set of charges for which criminal case was lodged
against the petitioner, which culminated in acquittal in both the
criminal cases against the petitioner. The entire departmental
proceeding was conducted with a pre-determined mind, since
the written request made by the petitioner before the enquiry
officer on 31.07.2020 to adduce defence witnesses was rejected
on the ground that the petitioner is trying to delay the
departmental proceeding and thereby petitioner was not given
any opportunity to prove his innocence . Accordingly, the order
contained in Memo No. 1516 dated 26.11.2020 issued under the
signature of the Superintendent of Police Rail, Katihar, the
appellate order contained in Memo No. 221 dated 16.03.2021
issued under the signature of DIG Rail, Bihar, Patna and the
order contained in letter No. p-3/13-07-18/2022/426 dated
18.7.2022 issued under the signature of the Director General of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4433 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
18/18
Police, Bihar, Patna are hereby set aside.
16. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary
authority to proceed afresh from the stage of issuance of memo
of charge by issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and
after giving him due to opportunity, to file his reply and then
proceed in accordance with law. While taking final decision in
the matter, the disciplinary authority should take into
consideration that since the departmental proceeding has been
initiated against the petitioner on the basis of two criminal
cases, which were lodged against the petitioner and which
culminated in clean acquittal of the petitioner. The entire
exercise must be completed within a period of six months from
the date of receipt/ production a copy of the order.
17. With the aforesaid observation and direction,
the writ petition is Allowed.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
krishnakant/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.02.2026 Transmission Date NA
