Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4919 of 2023
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Singh S/o Karu Pd. Singh Resident of Village Birnaudha, P.S.
Shambhuganj, District Banka at Present resident at Lalita Devi Lane, Choti
Khanjarpur, Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Banka.
2. The District Magistrate, Banka.
3. The Senior Additional Collector, Banka.
4. The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Banka.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ray Saurabh Nath
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Manish Kumar (Gp4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-02-2026
Heard the parties.
Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2023
2. The present interlocutory application has been filed for
impleading the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur
as party respondent in the instant writ petition, since the order
contained in Memo No. 127 dated 25.01.2023 has been assailed
by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the State has got no objection
to the same.
4. Accordingly, I. A. No. 1 of 2023 is allowed. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
2/29
Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur is impleaded as
Respondent No.5 in the present writ petition. The learned
counsel for the petitioner is directed to make necessary
correction in the cause title of the petition during course of the
day.
CWJC No. 4919 of 2023
5. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:
"... ... ... For quashing the order issued
by the District Magistrate, Banka vide Memo
No 472 dated 08.07.2022 by which the
service of the petitioner has been terminated
and the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the
Commissioner, Bhagalpur in Miscellaneous
(Service) Appeal Case No 29 of 2022-2023
whereby the memo of appeal filed by the
petitioner stood rejected mechanically on the
enquiry report dated 26.10.2021 presented by
Senior Deputy Collector, Banka. And in the
consequence grant of all the benefits which
include arrears of salary/suspension
allowance and promotion for which the
petitioner is entitled."
6. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition is
that while petitioner was posted as Block Agriculture Officer,
Dhoraiya, a first information report bearing Dhoraiya P.S. Case
No. 02 of 2016 was registered against him and the petitioner
was put under suspension vide Memo No. 197 dated
28.03.2016
. The petitioner was also served with a show cause
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
3/29
notice issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Banka vide
Memo No. 1512 dated 23.08.2016. The petitioner filed his
detailed reply wherein he denied all the charges levelled against
him, however the departmental enquiry was conducted and the
Enquiry Officer submitted his report on the same day, i. e. the
date on which the petitioner filed his show cause reply, i. e.
20.09.2016. From perusal of the enquiry report, it would
transpire that the same was prepared with pre-determined mind,
since no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Department
nor any documentary evidence was relied upon to prove the
charges against the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
upon receipt of the enquiry report, the D. M., Banka proceeded
to issue second show cause notice to the petitioner vide Memo
No. 584 dated 08.11.2016, however the petitioner could not
receive the same, since he was already taken into custody on
17.11.2016, in connection with Dhoraiya P. S. Case No. 02 of
2016. The said notice was received by the petitioner on
23.12.2016, in jail, therefore, he could not submit his show
cause reply. The District Magistrate, Banka vide Memo No. 46
dated 03.02.2017 proceeded to terminate the petitioner from
service, without even considering the fact that the Enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
4/29
Officer submitted his enquiry report on the same day, when the
reply was submitted by the petitioner before the Enquiry
Officer, i. e. 20.09.2016. The petitioner preferred statutory
appeal before the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division,
Bhagalpur, however the same was rejected vide order dated
01.07.2017. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of
termination passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order
passed by the Appellate authority, filed a writ petition bearing
CWJC No. 18401 of 2017, which was finally heard and allowed
by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
25.07.2018, whereby the learned coordinate Bench proceeded to
quash the enquiry report dated 20.09.2016, the punishment
order dated 03.02.2015, passed by the District Magistrate,
Banka and the order of the Appellate Authority dated
01.07.2017 passed in Appeal Case No. 26 of 2016-2017. The
matter was remitted back to the respondent-authorities for
conducting fair and proper enquiry, after giving proper
opportunity for his participation, either himself or through his
agent as it was informed that the petitioner was still in custody.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that in the meantime, vide judgment dated 04.10.2019 passed in
Trial No. 35 of 2019, arising out of Dhoraiya P. S. Case No. 02
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
5/29
of 2016 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Purnea, the
petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against him by
giving him the benefit of doubt. After his release from jail on
21.04.2020, the petitioner gave his joining before the D. M.,
Banka on 27.04.2020, through Speed Post, since, during the
relevant time, complete lock down was enforced by the
Government of India on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. The
petitioner was allowed to join, but at the same time, he was put
under suspension since 03.02.2017 vide Memo No. 225 dated
21.05.2020 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate,
Banka, which was assailed by the petitioner by filing CWJC No.
8467 of 2020, wherein vide order dated 09.02.2021, the writ
petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities
concerned to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner. The
petitioner was again served with Memo of Charge contained in
Memo No. 240 dated 26.05.2020 issued under the signature of
Senior Deputy Collector, Banka.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
said Memo of Charge was the same Memo of Charge, which
was served upon the petitioner on 23.08.2016. The petitioner
filed his reply to the show cause on 08.06.2020, wherein he
denied all the charges levelled against him and he requested the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
6/29
Enquiry Officer to give him opportunity of personal hearing and
to participate in the departmental proceeding, so that he can
rebut the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer,
without examination of any witness and without giving any
opportunity to the petitioner, to participate in the departmental
proceeding, only on the basis of the documents produced before
him, by the Presenting Officer and one another document, i. e.
Letter No. 860 dated 23.03.2015, which was not even part of the
documents, which the respondent-authorities intended to rely
upon during the enquiry, proceeded to prove the charges against
the petitioner and submitted his enquiry report before the
Disciplinary Authority on 26.10.2021. The Disciplinary
Authority vide Memo No. 171 dated 29.03.2022 issued second
show cause notice to the petitioner.
10. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show
cause notice issued by the District Magistrate, Banka, on
18.04.2022, wherein he stated that without examination of any
witness and production of any document in support of the
charge, the entire enquiry was conducted with pre-determined
mind. The District Magistrate, Banka vide his order contained in
Memo No. 472 dated 08.07.2022, without even considering the
reply submitted by the petitioner and only on the basis of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
7/29
report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, even went on to record
that despite opportunity being given to the petitioner to produce
evidences in support of his reply, which the petitioner could not
do, proceeded to reject the show cause reply filed by the
petitioner and passed the order of punishment, whereby the
petitioner was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved with the
order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the District Magistrate,
Banka, the petitioner filed statutory appeal before the
Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, wherein he
again raised all the issues in his defence, including non-
examination of the witnesses and no opportunity being granted
to him to cross-examine the witnesses. The Commissioner,
Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur by the impugned order
contained in Memo No. 127 dated 25.01.2023 rejected the
appeal preferred by the petitioner.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
report of the Enquiry Officer was prepared without giving any
opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the said enquiry or
any opportunity of being heard or to cross-examine the
witnesses. The entire enquiry was conducted in violation of the
provisions contained in Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for brevity,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
8/29
Bihar CCA Rules) and even the Enquiry Officer did not pay
heed to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in C.W.J.C. No. 18401 of 2017.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the enquiry report itself gets vitiated on the ground that the
same has been prepared in complete violation of the provisions
contained in Rule 17 (14) of the Bihar CCA Rules, since no
proper enquiry was conducted and major punishment was
awarded to the petitioner, without any documentary evidence or
the documents which were relied upon by the Presenting
Officer, were not supported by the witnesses examined and no
opportunity was given to the delinquent to cross-examine the
witnesses. The enquiry report is based on virtually no evidence,
since the Enquiry Officer relied upon Memo No. 860 dated
23.03.2015, although the same does not form part of the
documents, which were to be relied upon in the memo of
charge/show cause notice.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that when an enquiry is to be conducted, the Enquiry Officer
exercises the jurisdiction of a quasi judicial authority, then he
must see that the charges are proved by supporting evidence and
supporting documents, in as much as the Enquiry Officer has a
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
9/29
duty cast upon him that the delinquent must get a fair
opportunity in the enquiry proceeding and he be allowed to
cross-examine the witnesses, produced by the prosecution as
well as he should have to give proper opportunity to the
defence. The entire enquiry report is based upon conjectures and
surmises, since the same has been prepared on the basis of the
show cause notice and the reply submitted by the petitioner,
without any material witness in support of the documents relied
upon by the Enquiry Officer. The impugned order passed by the
District Magistrate, Banka on 08.07.2022 is a non speaking
order, which is based on no evidence, since no witness in
support of the document relied upon by the department, was
produced during course of enquiry and even the petitioner was
not given any opportunity of being heard or to cross-examine
the witnesses.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that an impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Banka
is based on the document i. e. Letter No. 860 dated 23.03.2015,
which was not part of the show cause notice issued to the
petitioner and no witnesses were produced by the Presenting
Officer in support of the said letter. Even the appellate authority
in his order, recorded a finding that the petitioner failed to
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
10/29
produce any evidence, which is perverse, since it was not the
duty of the petitioner to produce evidence, rather it was the duty
of the Presenting Officer to produce the witnesses to corroborate
the charges and the documents relied upon, but he proceeded to
reject the appeal filed by the petitioner only on the ground that
the delinquent could not produce any witness in his
defence/response. The petitioner was not given any opportunity
to produce defence witnesses, to rebut the charges, which have
been levelled against him.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and
relies upon a judgment dated 30.08.2025 passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 1461 of 2023 Dhirendra Kumar Jha vs. The State of Bihar
and Ors. by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the Co-
ordinate Bench in paragraph no. 23 has held as follows:-
“23. In the impugned order
neither any specific reason has
been assigned nor the
explanation submitted by the
petitioner has been duly
considered. A mere reiteration of
the allegations are made in the
impugned order. The
disciplinary authority ought to
have passed the impugned
punishment order only after
recording the reasons, since
from the reasons assigned in the
impugned order, it could have
been inferred whether the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
11/29disciplinary authority had
applied its mind in order to
arrive to the conclusion in the
form of punishment or not. In
the present case the Disciplinary
Authority has itself not
examined the evidences and
materials produced during the
course of enquiry and once the
disciplinary authority has failed
to record such reasons in the
punishment order, the same can
not be sustained. The impugned
order is therefore cryptic and
non-speaking order and is no
order in the eye of law. This
kind of cryptic and non-
speaking order is bad in law”
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies upon a judgment dated 03.07.1997
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 878 of 1992 Ugra Nath Jha vs.
The Administrator, Biscomaun and Ors. wherein a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in paragrpahs No. 4 and 5 has
held as follows:-
4. Counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that the Petitioner
was not given any opportunity
to adduce evidence and defend
himself and there has been
violation of rules of natural
justice. He submitted that if the
Respondents wanted to award
major penalty to the Petitioner
they should have held full-
fledged departmental enquiry.
What has been done in the
instant case is that the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
12/29
Enquiry Officer examined the
reports, called the Petitioner for
interview and thereafter
submitted his report. Counsel
for the Respondents submitted
that bye-laws do not provide
for any departmental
proceeding akin to Rule 55 of
the Civil Services
(Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1930,
applicable in the case of
Government servants.
Therefore, in the absence of
any laid-down procedure for
conducting the departmental
proceeding the Court has
merely to see whether the rules
of natural justice have been
violated. According to the
counsel, opportunity of hearing
was allowed to the Petitioner.
Counsel contended that it was
open to the Petitioner to
explain the discrepancies as
pointed out in the reports
which he failed to do.
Therefore no error can be
found with the impugned order.
He also submitted that having
regard to the fact that the
Petitioner has been punished on
the charge of embezzlement
this Court should not exercise
its discretion and interfere in
the matter.
5. I have considered the
submissions for the counsel for
the parties. I have also perused
the enquiry report, copy
whereof has been marked
Annexure 6 to the writ petition.
From the report it appears that
the enquiry officer noticed the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
13/29
aforesaid three inspection
reports and thereafter directed
the Petitioner to appear. He
thereafter called certain
clarifications from the Range
Officer and Sr. Range Officer.
On the basis of the explanation
given by the Petitioner and the
so-called clarification given by
the officers, behind back of the
Petitioners, he recorded his
findings on 10.3.89 and
forwarded the same to the
Administrator. Copies of the
communications received from
Range/Senior Range Officer
were not furnished to the
Petitioner and he was not
allowed any opportunity to
explain the same. Since the
order is based on materials not
known to the Petitioner I find
substance in the contention of
the Petitioner that there has
been violation of natural
justice. Further, in my opinion,
if the Respondents wanted to
impose major punishment they
should have held a regular
enquiry and given liberty to the
Petitioner to adduce his
evidence. If they wanted to rely
on any report or material which
was obtained after the
submission of the show cause
and explanation orally
furnished by the Petitioner, in
all fairness, copies should have
been given to him so that he
could explain them. In the
above premises, the impugned
order cannot be sustained.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
14/29
and relies upon a judgment dated 01.04.2003 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 11580 of 1998 Vijay Shankar Shrivastava vs.
State of Bihar and Ors. wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in paragraph no. 6 to 8 has held as follows:-
6. In paragraph 18 of the writ
application, it has been
specifically stated that no
opportunity, whatsoever, was
given to the petitioner to adduce
evidence in support of his case.
The statement made in paragraph
18 of the writ application has not
been controverted in specific
terms.
7. From the record of this case,
which has been produced before
me, it does not appear that any
opportunity was given to the
petitioner to adduce evidence in
his defence, rather it appears that
only a show-cause notice was
given to him and thereafter
charge-sheet was submitted and
he was punished. The
proceeding, as it appears, was
concluded in most summary way
and not in accordance with law.
In a case, where a delinquent
employee is found guilty for
major punishment, a full-fledged
inquiry is required to be made in
terms of the provisions of the
Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules
(hereinafter to be referred to as
“Rules”). In case of Kuldip Singh
v. Commissioner of Police and
Ors. (1999) 2 SC 10 the apex
Court observed as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
15/29“32. Apart from the above, Rule
16(3) has to be considered in
the light of the provisions
contained in Article 311(2) of
the Constitution to find out
whether it purports to provide
reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the delinquent
Reasonable opportunity
contemplated by Article 311(2)
means “hearing” in accordance
with the principles of natural
justice under which one of the
basic requirements is that all the
witnesses in the departmental
enquiry shall be examined in
the presence of the delinquent
who shall be given an
opportunity to cross-examine
them. Where a statement
previously made by a witness,
either during the course of
preliminary enquiry or
investigation, is proposed to be
brought on record in the
departmental proceedings, the
law as laid down by this Court
is that a copy of that statement
should first be supplied to the
delinquent who should
thereafter be given an
opportunity to cross-examine
that witness.”
Again in the case of Ugra
Nath Jha v. The Administrator,
Biscomaun and Anr.,
MANU/BH/0588/1997 : (1998
(1) PLJR 129) this Court held
that regular inquiry is
necessary, where major
punishment is to be imposed
even if the rules do not
specifically provides for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
16/29
same.
8. In the case at hand,
requirement of law, as noticed
above, has not been followed
nor any opportunity was given
to the petitioner to adduce
evidence when a major
punishment was imposed upon
him.”
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on
a judgment dated 10.11.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 21259 of
2019 Bibhuti Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar and Ors. wherein
in paragraphs No. 16 to 18 it has been held as follows:-
16. On perusal of the contents of
the enquiry report, a copy of
which has been brought on
record as Annexure-3 to the writ
application, it transpires that the
Enquiry Officer has placed
reliance on various paragraphs of
the Enquiry Report no.61 of 2012
submitted by the Vigilance
Department. However, it also
transpires that neither any
witness was examined on behalf
of the Management in support of
the allegations/charges against
the petitioner nor was the
vigilance enquiry report or any
other documents exhibited and
proved in course of the enquiry.
17. At this stage, it would be
relevant to take note of relevant
paragraphs of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Satyendra Singh (supra)
relied on by learned counsel for
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
17/29the petitioner. The same are :-
“13. This Court in a catena of
judgments has held that the
recording of evidence in a
disciplinary proceeding
proposing charges of a major
punishment is mandatory.
Reference in this regard may be
held to Roop Singh Negi v.
Punjab National Bank and
Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of
Gujarat.
14. In the case of Roop Singh
Negi, this Court held that mere
production of documents is not
enough, contents of documentary
evidence have to be proved by
examining witnesses. Relevant
extract thereof reads as under:-
“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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
18/29officer on the FIR which could
not have been treated as
evidence.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore
that the only basic evidence
whereupon reliance has been
placed by the enquiry officer was
the purported confession made by
the appellant before the police.
According to the appellant, he
was forced to sign on the said
confession, as he was tortured in
the police station. The appellant
being an employee of the Bank,
the said confession should have
been proved. Some evidence
should have been brought on
record to show that he had
indulged in stealing the bank
draft book. Admittedly, there was
no direct evidence. Even there
was no indirect evidence. The
tenor of the report demonstrates
that the enquiry officer had made
up his mind to find him guilty as
otherwise he would not have
proceeded on the basis that the
offence was committed in such a
manner that no evidence was left.
……………..
19. The judgment and decree
passed against the respondent in
Narinder Mohan Arya case
[MANU/SC/1901/2006:
2006:INSC:215: (2006) 4 SCC
713: 2006 SCC (L&S) 840] had
attained finality. In the said suit,
the enquiry report in the
disciplinary proceeding was
considered, the same was held to
have been based on no evidence.
The appellant therein in the
aforementioned situation filed a
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
19/29writ petition questioning the
validity of the disciplinary
proceeding, the same was
dismissed. This Court held that
when a crucial finding like
forgery was arrived at on
evidence which is non est in the
eye of the law, the civil court
would have jurisdiction to
interfere in the matter. This Court
emphasised that a finding can be
arrived at by the enquiry officer
if there is some evidence on
record….”
(emphasis supplied)
15. Same view was reiterated in
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj
Kumar Sinha, wherein, this Court
held that even in an ex-parte
inquiry, it is the duty of the
Inquiry Officer to examine the
evidence presented by the
Department to find out whether
the unrebutted evidence is
sufficient to hold that the charges
are proved. The relevant
observations made in Saroj
Kumar Sinha are 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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
20/29procedure 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.
……
33. As noticed earlier in the
present case not only the
respondent has been denied
access to documents sought to be
relied upon against him, but he
has been condemned unheard as
the inquiry officer failed to fix
any date for conduct of the
enquiry. In other words, not a
single witness has been examined
in support of the charges levelled
against the respondent. The High
Court, therefore, has rightly
observed that the entire
proceedings are vitiated having
been conducted in complete
violation of the principles of
natural justice and total disregard
of fair play. The respondent never
had any opportunity at any stage
of the proceedings to offer an
explanation against the
allegations made in the charge-
sheet.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. In the case of Nirmala J.
Jhala this Court held that
evidence recorded in a
preliminary inquiry cannot be
used for a regular inquiry as the
delinquent is not associated with
it and the opportunity to cross-
examine persons examined in
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
21/29
preliminary inquiry is not given.
Relevant extract thereof reads as
under:-
“42. A Constitution Bench of this
Court in Amalendu Ghosh v.
North Eastern Railway
[MANU/SC/0318/1960 : AIR
1960 SC 992] held that the
purpose of holding a preliminary
inquiry in respect of a particular
alleged misconduct is only for
the purpose of finding a
particular fact and prima facie, to
know as to whether the alleged
misconduct has been committed
and on the basis of the findings
recorded in preliminary inquiry,
no order of punishment can be
passed. It may be used only to
take a view as to whether a
regular disciplinary proceeding
against the delinquent is required
to be held.
43. Similarly in Champaklal
Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India
[MANU/SC/0274/1963 :
1963:INSC:214: AIR 1964 SC
1854] Constitution Bench of this
Court while taking a similar view
held that preliminary inquiry
should not be confused with
regular inquiry. The preliminary
inquiry is not governed by the
provisions of Article 311(2) of
the Constitution of India.
Preliminary inquiry may be held
ex parte, for it is merely for the
satisfaction of the Government
though usually for the sake of
fairness, an explanation may be
sought from the government
servant even at such an inquiry.
But at that stage, he has no right
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
22/29to be heard as the inquiry is
merely for the satisfaction of the
Government as to whether a
regular inquiry must be held. The
Court further held as under: (AIR
p. 1862, para 12)
“12…. There must therefore be no
confusion between the two
enquiries and it is only when the
government proceeds to hold a
departmental enquiry for the
purpose of inflicting on the
government servant one of the
three major punishments
indicated in Article 311 that the
government servant is entitled to
the protection of that article [ nor
prior to that].”
44. In Narayan Dattatraya
Ramteerthakhar v. State of
Maharashtra
[MANU/SC/0526/1997:
1996:INSC: 1348: (1997) 1 SCC
299: 1997 SCC (L&S) 152: AIR
1997 SC 2148] this Court dealt
with the issue and held as under:
“… a preliminary inquiry has
nothing to do with the enquiry
conducted after issue of charge-
sheet. The preliminary enquiry is
only to find out whether
disciplinary enquiry should be
initiated against the delinquent.
Once regular enquiry is held
under the Rules, the preliminary
enquiry loses its importance and,
whether preliminary enquiry was
held strictly in accordance with
law or by observing principles of
natural justice of (sic) nor,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
23/29remains of no consequence.”
45. In view of the above, it is
evident that the evidence
recorded in preliminary inquiry
cannot be used in regular inquiry
as the delinquent is not
associated with it, and
opportunity to cross-examine the
persons examined in such inquiry
is not given. Using such evidence
would be violative of the
principles of natural justice.
(emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, even in an ex-parte
inquiry, it is sine qua non to
record the evidence of the
witnesses for proving the
charges. Having tested the facts
of the case at hand on the
touchstone of the Rules of 1999,
and the law as expounded by this
Court in the cases of Roop Singh
Negi and Nirmala J. Jhala, we are
of the firm view that the inquiry
proceedings conducted against
the appellant pertaining to
charges punishable with major
penalty, were totally vitiated and
non-est in the eyes of law since
no oral evidence whatsoever was
recorded by the department in
support of the charges.”
18. So far as the facts of the
instant case are concerned, herein
also no witness was examined,
no oral evidence lead nor any
document exhibited or proved in
support of the allegations
levelled against the petitioner. In
such view of the matter, the order
of punishment imposing the
penalty of dismissal from service
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
24/29
is vitiated and not sustainable in
law.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally relies on
a judgment dated 25.08.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10021 of
2022 Nupul Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. wherein a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph no. 8 and 9 has
held as follows:
“8. Perusal of the enquiry report
further shows that though four
witnesses were examined by the
enquiry officer but opportunity of
cross-examination of those
witnesses were not provided to
the petitioner. It also appears that
the statements of the witnesses
were not recorded by the enquiry
officer himself rather their written
statements were brought on
record by the presenting officer
and without giving any
opportunity of cross- examination
of those witnesses, the enquiry
officer on the basis of said written
statements of the witnesses
arrived at the conclusion that the
charges levelled against the
husband of the petitioner Brajesh
Kumar are duly proved.
9. Taking into consideration the
above, it is clear that the material
witnesses were not examined by
the department. Further the
witnesses, who were examined by
the enquiry officer, have not been
cross-examined by the delinquent.
Opportunity of cross-examination
has also not been given and
provided to him. Virtually, it is a
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
25/29case of no evidence. In spite of
that, the enquiry officer wrongly
arrived at the conclusion that the
charges levelled against the
delinquent are duly proved. The
disciplinary authority and the
authority who dismissed the
memorial have also not
considered these aspects.
Therefore, all the impugned
orders are liable to be set aside.”
20. Per contra the learned counsel for the State submits
that while the petitioner was posted as Block Agriculture
Officer, Dhoraiya, a First Information Report was lodged
against him and he was put under suspension in contemplation
of departmental proceeding. Show cause notice was issued to
him, thereafter the petitioner filed his show cause reply and the
Enquiry Officer after enquiry, submitted his report, after
considering the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner in
consonance with the report submitted by the District Manager,
S.F.C., Banka -cum- Presenting Officer and found the charges
levelled against the petitioner to be proved. Upon the receipt of
the enquiry report, 2nd show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner, but the petitioner did not file any reply, as such
punishment was imposed, which was subsequently quashed by
this Court. In terms of the liberty granted by this Court, the
departmental proceeding was again initiated and memo of
charge was issued to the petitioner. In compliance thereof he
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
26/29
filed his show cause reply and after considering the same the
enquiry report was submitted. Second show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner and after considering the same, the order
of punishment dated 08.07.2022 was passed. Being aggrieved
with the said order, the petitioner filed his appeal which was
numbered as Service Appeal No. 29 of 2022-2023, but the same
was also rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated
25.01.2023.
21. The learned counsel for the State submits that there is
no infirmity in the enquiry report or the order passed by the
disciplinary authority, since due opportunity was given to the
petitioner to participate in the departmental proceeding and after
thorough enquiry, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion
that charges against the petitioner have been found to be proved,
thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to award
punishment of dismissal from service, upon the petitioner.
22. Having heard the parties and after going through the
document available on record, this Court finds that after the
matter was remitted back to the respondent authorities for
proceeding afresh, but again the same charge memo was issued
to the petitioner, which was issued, prior to passing of the order
dated 25.07.2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 18401 of 2017. From perusal
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
27/29
of the charge memo it would transpire that no list of witness was
provided with the memo of charge, which is in complete
violation of the provisions contained in Rule 17 (3) and (4) of
the Bihar CCA Rules, since the petitioner was denied an
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, to be relied upon by
the department, to rebut the charges against him. Further, it
appears that the enquiry report was submitted in complete
violation of the provisions contained in Rule 17 (14) of the
Bihar CCA Rules, since no proper enquiry was conducted in the
present case and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to
examine the witnesses or to cross-examine the witnesses,
produced by the department. Even the Enquiry Officer as well
as the disciplinary authority heavily relied on Memo No. 860
dated 23.03.2015, to come to the conclusion that the charges
against the petitioner have been found to be proved, but the said
letter was never made part of the document to be relied upon by
the department while issuing memo of charge to the petitioner
and the same was all of a sudden relied upon by the Enquiry
Officer to prove the charges, for which no opportunity was
given to the petitioner to rebut the same and the said document
was not proved by its author. Further, it is the duty of the
Enquiry Officer, exercising the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
28/29
authority, that he must see that the charges must be proved by
proper evidence as well as documents and the Enquiry Officer
must ensure that the delinquent must get fair opportunity. If he
fails to adhere to the same, then it can be said that the enquiry
was not conducted in a fair manner. In the present case, this
Court finds the said omission on the part of the Enquiry Officer.
23. From the above consideration, this Court finds that
the order impugned contained in Memo No. 472 and the
appellate order contained in Memo No. 127 dated 25.01.2023
deserves to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.
24. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service
forthwith. He will be entitled for all the benefits which would
have been given to him, if he would have been in service. The
present order is being passed taking into consideration that the
respondents were given opportunity earlier to correct their
mistake, but they did not choose to do so and now again
remitting the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed
afresh would be offering a premium to the negligence of the
Disciplinary Authority and condoning the levity with which the
departmental enquiry was conducted.
25. The writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned
Patna High Court CWJC No.4919 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
29/29
terms.
26. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 16.03.2026 Transmission Date NA
