Patna High Court
Anand Swarup vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 21 April, 2026
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3773 of 2017
======================================================
Anand Swarup S/o Late Tulsi Sahani, resident of Village Raghunathpur, P.S.
Paru, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Special Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Commissioner of Departmental Enquiry, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Aakash Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-8
Mr. Anil Kumar, AC to SC-8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 21-04-2026
Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief(s) :
"1. (i) For quashing of the resolution
contained in memo no. 4295 dated 18.3.2016
whereby and where under the disciplinary
authority inflicted punishment of dismissal
from service and no payment during the
period of suspension except subsistence
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
2/15
allowance against the petitioner in
connection with departmental proceeding no.
04/2011.
(ii) For quashing of the resolution contained
in memo no. 10532 dated 1.8.2016 whereby
the review petition dated 29.4.2016 filed by
the petitioner against the order inflicting
punishment dated 18.3.2016 was rejected
and punishment order dated 18.3.2016 has
been maintained.
(iii) For appropriate declarations (a) that the
entire departmental proceeding conducted
against the petitioner was in violation of
principles of natural justice and fair play; (b)
the Commissioner of Departmental enquiry
instead of acting as impartial quasi judicial
officer has acted as interested party and thus
the enquiry report is vitiated on fact as well
as in law; (c) denial of opportunity to cross
examine the witness examined in the
departmental enquiry vitiated the enquiry
and enquiry report; (d) denial of opportunity
to examine defence witness to establish
innocence amounts to violation of the
principles of natural justice and reasonable
opportunity guaranteed under Article 311 (2)
of the Constitution of India (e) the
disciplinary authority while inflicting
punishment of dismissal from service and
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
3/15
reviewing authority while upholding the said
decision was under obligation to
independently exercise the power by
considering the issues raised in second show
cause reply and review petition and non-
consideration thereof goes to the root of the
case and rendered the decision inflicting
punishment nullity in the eye of law.
(iv) For a follow up direction to the
Respondents to reinstate the petitioner with
all back wages.
(v) For any other relief or consequential
reliefs to which the petitioner may be found
entitled to in the facts and circumstances of
this case."
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on the
recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission
('B.P.S.C' in short), he was appointed as Deputy Collector on
15.5.1989
. In course of time, he was posted as Block
Development Officer, Adapur in the District of East
Champaran.
4. The State Government framed rules for absorption
of Shiksha Mitra and for appointment of Panchayat Shikshak
known as the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak Niyojan
Evam Seva Shart Niyamawali, 2006. The B.D.O had no role to
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
4/15
play in the entire selection process.
5. One Gopi Chand Ram made a complaint in
writing to the petitioner about one Sudama Ram having
procured appointment as Panchayat Shikshak on the basis of a
forged certificate. Another complaint was made by Gopi
Chand Ram on 7.12.2006. On enquiry being commenced,
Sudama Ram tendered his resignation and thereafter Gopi
Chand Ram was appointed as a Panchayat Shikshak.
6. On a further complaint by Gopi Chand Ram, the
petitioner was apprehended on the allegation of taking bribe
of Rs. 5,000/- at his residence. Vigilance Case no. 17 of 2007
came to be registered.
7. A memo of charge in Prapatra-ka was issued on
14.8.2007 levelling two charges against the petitioner i.e., (i)
the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs. 70,000/- from the
complainant Gopi Chand Ram and (ii) on the complaint by the
complainant to the vigilance, a trap was conducted and the
petitioner was caught taking bribe.
8. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the
memorandum of charge and the enquiry proceeded wherein
the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiry, Bihar submitted his
final enquiry report on 16.7.2015. The petitioner was served
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
5/15
with a second show cause along with a copy of the enquiry
report to which he filed his response on 7.9.2015.
9. The respondents came out with the order of
punishment dated 18.3.2016 under the signature of the
Additional Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar dismissing the petitioner from service.
10. The review preferred by the petitioner was
rejected by order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the Special
Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar.
11. It is against the order of dismissal dated
18.3.2016 and the order rejecting the review application on
1.8.2016 that the petitioner has preferred the instant writ
application. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the
enquiry report dated 16.7.2015 and reinstating him in service
with all back wages.
12. It was submitted by learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner being an Officer
of the Bihar Administrative Service was appointed by the
Governor of Bihar. The memo of charge as contained in
Annexure P/5 came to be issued by the Under Secretary of the
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
6/15
Government of Bihar in absence of any order of the Governor
of Bihar. Further, neither the list of witness nor the list of
documents were included with the memo of charge which was
a clear violation of Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government
Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005
(‘CCA Rules’ in short). The petitioner was not given an
opportunity to cross-examine the Mukhiya and the Panchayat
Secretary. The complainant did not support the allegations of
demand of bribe by the petitioner and the charge no.1 which
pertain to allegation of the petitioner demanding bribe of Rs.
70,000/- was not proved in the opinion of the Enquiry Officer.
It was submitted that the Enquiry Officer travelled beyond the
memo of charge and found a charge proved which was not
even part of the memo of charge. It was lastly submitted that
during pendency of the writ application, by judgment dated
9.8.2018, the petitioner was acquitted in Special Case no. 9 of
2007 by the Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap Cases), Patna,
which was the trial arising out of Vigilance Case no. 17 of
2007.
13. It was thus prayed that the orders impugned be
set aside and the writ application be allowed with all
consequential benefits.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
7/15
14. The application was opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. Referring to the counter
affidavit filed, it was submitted that while posted as B.D.O,
Adapur in the District of East Champaran, the petitioner was
apprehended accepting a bribe of Rs.5,000/- which lead to
registration of vigilance case and the petitioner was placed
under suspension by order dated 26.3.2007.
15. Article of charges were framed against the
petitioner in Form-ka on 27.8.2007 and on receipt of
explanation from the petitioner, it was decided to initiate a
departmental proceeding against him. The Departmental
Enquiry Commissioner was appointed as the Conducting
Officer and he submitted his enquiry report dated 16.7.2015
where he found the charge no.2 to have been proved. The
petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report to
which he submitted his response.
16. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, by order dated 18.3.2016, the
petitioner was dismissed from service and it was further
ordered that for the period of suspension, he would not be
paid any other amount except the subsistence allowance
already paid. The review preferred by the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
8/15
considered by the authority and the same was rejected on
29.4.2016, keeping the order of punishment intact.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that there is no illegality in the orders impugned nor in the
procedure in conduct of the departmental proceeding. There
being no merit in the writ application, the same be dismissed.
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
19. The relevant facts in brief are that while posted
as B.D.O, Adapur in the District of East Champaran, on a
complaint filed by Gopi Chand Ram, the petitioner was taken
into custody in a trap case on the allegation of taking bribe of
Rs.5,000/- and Vigilance Case no.17 of 2007 came to be
registered against him.
20. A decision was taken to proceed against the
petitioner in a departmental proceeding and the petitioner was
served with the memo of charge dated 10.6.2009.
21. The charges against the petitioner was that he
had demanded a bribe of Rs.70,000/-from the complainant for
his appointment and on the complainant’s expressing his
inability to pay the said amount, he took a sum of Rs.70,000/-
from one Sudama Ram and on the basis of a forged certificate
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
9/15
issued an appointment letter to him. The second charge was
that he was caught taking bribe of Rs.5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-
by a trap team of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, he was
taken into custody and for which a case being Vigilance P.S.
Case no.17 of 2007 was registered.
22. The enquiry proceeded wherein the Conducting
Officer submitted his final enquiry report on 16.7.2015
finding charge no.2 to have been proved.
23. The petitioner was served with a copy of the
chargesheet in Prapatra-ka containing two charges brought on
record as Annexure-P/5 to the writ application. Rule 17 (4) of
the CCA Rules clearly provides that the disciplinary authority
shall deliver or caused to be delivered to the Government
Servant a copy of the articles of charge, such statement of the
imputations of misconduct or misbehavior and a list of
documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is
proposed to be sustained. A perusal of the article of charge
(Annexure-P/5) would show that it neither contains a list of
documents nor a list of witnesses by which each of the
charges are proposed to be sustained. The memo of charge by
way of evidence only refers to the letter no. 166 dated
14.2.2007 of the Vigilance Bureau, Cabinet Vigilance
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
10/15
Department and dated 9.2.2007 of the Vigilance, Patna as
being enclosed. Thus not containing the list of documents or
the witnesses by which each of the article of charge was
proposed to be proved, the memo of charge was clearly in
violation of the provisions as contained in Rule 17(4) of the
CCA Rules.
24. On perusal of the final enquiry report as
contained in Annexure-P/9 to the writ application, it would
transpire that for the first time, the same mentions of as many
as 76 documents in support of the charge levelled against the
petitioner. Firstly, the enquiry report does not state or deals
with the issue as to how the documents and its contents were
proved by the witnesses. Further, the charges have been dealt
with in clause-4 of the report. Interestingly, instead of proving
the charge by leading oral and documentary evidence, the
Conducting Officer has proceeded to deal with the defence of
the petitioner in different sub-clauses numbered as 4.1, 4.2
and 4.3 and thereafter he gives his conclusion. Clauses 4.1 to
4.3 only proceed to give the reasons as to why the defence put
forward by the petitioner is not sustainable. Thereafter in
clause-5, the Conducting Officer, without any further
discussion, concludes that charge no.2 is proved.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
11/15
25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop
Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank; (2009) 2 SCC 570 held
as follows :-
“14. Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The
enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial
function. The charges levelled against the
delinquent officer must be found to have been
proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive
at a finding upon taking into consideration the
materials brought on record by the parties. The
purported evidence collected during
investigation by the investigating officer against
all the accused by itself could not be treated to
be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No
witness was examined to prove the said
documents. The management witnesses merely
tendered the documents and did not prove the
contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed
by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could
not have been treated as evidence.”
26. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Devendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (judgment
dated 19.10.2023 passed in LPA no.1302 of 2017), following
Roop Singh Negi (supra) observed as follows :-
“7. As has been held in Roop Singh Negi
v Punjab National Bank and others; (2009) 2
SCC 570, the documents produced in a
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
12/15departmental inquiry has to be proved by
examining witnesses. Even an F.I.R. was held to
be not evidence by itself without actual proof of
facts stated therein. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
had also held that even an admission or
confession to the police itself is not sufficient to
find the delinquent employee guilty in a
departmental proceeding if no evidence is
brought on record to prove the offence or
misconduct alleged. Departmental inquiry was
held to be a quasi-judicial proceeding and the
Inquiry Officer functions in the status of a quasi-
Judicial authority. Not only should evidence be
led in a departmental inquiry, the conclusions
arrived at should be based on evidence which
brings forth a probability that the delinquent has
committed the misconduct alleged and charged
against him. No Inquiry Report based on
conjectures and surmises can be sustained and
even in a departmental inquiry, the standard of
proof is not a mere suspicion. However high the
degree of suspicion is, it cannot be a substitute
for legal proof.”
27. Contrary to the settled law as laid down in the
case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), there is no discussion
whatsoever by the Conducting Officer with respect to the oral
evidence lead, the documents and the contents thereof in
support of the charges being proved and as to how the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
13/15
Conducting Officer came to the conclusion of charge no.2
being proved.
28. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the opinion of the Court, none of the charges against
the petitioner were proved as required in law and the
Conducting Officer erred in coming to the conclusion that
charge no.2 was proved.
29. In addition to the above shortcomings, it would
also be relevant to keep in mind that the petitioner, who was a
Block Development Officer, had no role to play in the
appointment of a Panchayat Shikshak and further has been
acquitted in the criminal case in the learned trial Court.
30. A perusal of the order dated 18.3.2016 inflicting
the punishment of dismissal from service of the petitioner
would show that additional charges were levelled against him
that instead of acting on the request for guidelines received
from the panchayat office, in conspiracy with the staff of the
panchayat, he got the matter with respect to appointment of
the complainant sent to the Block and kept it pending there.
The disciplinary authority further states that when the
petitioner did not take any positive action in getting the matter
sent back to the panchayat and left it pending in the Block
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
14/15
Office, by remaining a silent spectator, even though he did not
take any bribe himself, he was in league with them.
31. The conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary
authority in the order of punishment as stated herein above
once again shows that the charges levelled against the
petitioner are not being proved against him but the petitioner
was now being punished for his inaction which was not part of
the charge.
32. The order passed in review on 1.8.2016 also
does not deal with nor answers the submissions raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner. The authority considering
the review filed by the petitioner was of the opinion that the
petitioner should have acted on his junior officers i.e., the
Block Education Extension Officer who was demanding bribe
from the complainant. It may be reiterated that this was not
the charge in the memo of charge in the instant departmental
proceeding.
33. In view of the facts and circumstances stated
herein above, in the opinion of the Court, this is a case of no
evidence against the petitioner as also in categorical violation
of the provisions as contained in Rule 17 of the CCA Rules.
34. Thus in view of the facts and circumstances of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3773 of 2017 dt.21-04-2026
15/15
the case, neither the order of dismissal contained in memo
no.4295 dated 18.3.2016 issued under the signature of the
Additional Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar nor the order rejecting the review
contained in memo no.10532 dated 1.8.2016 issued under the
signature of the Special Secretary, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar are sustainable and are
both quashed and set aside.
35. The petitioner is held entitled for all
consequential benefits including the arrears of salary for the
period of suspension as also for the period of dismissal.
36. The writ application is allowed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 03.02.2026 Uploading Date 21.04.2026 Transmission Date