Patna High Court
Ajit Kumar Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 17 July, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12297 of 2021
======================================================
Ajit Kumar Choudhary Son of Sri Ganesh Choudhary Resident of Village-
Salempur Suturkhana, P.S.-Muffasil, P.O.-Bank, District-Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Director General of Police, Bihar Military Police, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar Military Police (North), Patna.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar Military Police, North
Ranger, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Commandant, Bihar Military Police-9, Jamalpur, District-Munger.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District-Jamui.
8. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, District-Jamui.
9. The Commander, C-Company, Bihar Military Police-9, Camp-Sikandara
P.S., District-Jamui.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Adv.
Mr. Raj Kumar Choudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AC to GP-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 17-07-2026
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior
Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Akshansh Ankit, learned
Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned AC
to GP-5.
2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary
prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court for the following
reliefs:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
2/21
"a) To quash appellate order
issued by Appellant Authority
(Respondent No. 5) vide Memo No. 347
dated 21.03.2020 as contained in Memo
No. 891 dated 07.05.2020 [Annexure P7]
whereby and whereunder appeal of the
Petitioner was rejected and order of
dismissal passed in the Disciplinary
Proceeding was upheld in a most
mechanical and arbitrary manner without
following the procedure prescribed under
the relevant Rules or complying with the
principles of natural justice.
b) To quash order of
punishment as contained in Order No.
963/2019 dated 18.09.2019 [Annexure
P5] passed by the Respondent No. 6
whereby and whereunder Petitioner was
dismissed from service in a most
mechanical and arbitrary manner without
following the procedure prescribed under
the relevant Rules or complying with the
principles of natural justice.
c) For a direction upon the
Respondents reinstate the Petitioner and
grant all consequential benefits including
payment of salary, other benefits and
continuity in service.
d) To pass any other
order/orders in shape of a consequential
relief to which the Petitioner may be
found to be legally entitled to in the facts
and circumstances of the instant case at
hand."
3. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the
materials available on record are that the petitioner was initially
appointed on 17.12.1993 on the post of Constable.
Subsequently, he was transferred to Bihar Military Police in
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
3/21
1997 and was later posted as Constable Driver in the year 2002.
The petitioner was further promoted to the post of Driver
Hawaldar in 2010, and lastly, while he was working as Driver
Hawaldar in Bihar Military Police-9 at C-Company, Camp-
Sikandara P.S., District-Jamui, on account of certain allegations
based on a video clip which went viral on social media, the
petitioner along with others were placed under suspension vide
Memo No. 3085 dated 06.10.2018. It is alleged that on
02.10.2018
, the petitioner and one Naresh Kumar (Hawaldar)
was seen extorting money from truck drivers in connivance with
other members of patrolling party.
4. A preliminary inquiry was conducted at the behest
of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Jamui,
and upon being found prima facie substance in the allegation of
extorting money, duly corroborated with the video footage, a
formal departmental proceeding was initiated against the
petitioner. A memo of charge dated 16.11.2018 was served upon
the petitioner containing imputation that the petitioner was
indulged in collecting illegal money while being posted in C-
Company under Sikandara P.S. as Driver Hawaldar.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bihar
Military Police, Jamalpur, was appointed as Enquiry Officer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
4/21
and the Sub-Inspector of Police has been appointed as the
Presenting Officer. On receipt of the memo of charge, the
petitioner entered his appearance and submitted his written
defense to the Enquiry Officer, refuting all the allegations.
During the departmental enquiry, oral evidence of several
witnesses were taken in support of the allegation, and finally,
upon completion of the enquiry, an enquiry report has been
submitted on 17.08.2019, whereby the charges were said to be
proved. The disciplinary authority thereupon issued a second
show-cause notice dated 29.08.2019; on receipt thereof, the
petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the second show-cause.
The disciplinary authority, on being found dissatisfied with the
second show-cause explanation, vide Order No. 963/2019 dated
18.09.2019, dismissed the petitioner from service and further
held that for the period of suspension, only subsistence
allowance shall be paid to the petitioner.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid
order of dismissal dated 18.09.2019, preferred an appeal before
the respondent No. 5, bringing to his notice the error which has
crept into the disciplinary proceeding as well as his detailed
defense. However, the same came to be rejected vide Memo No.
891 dated 07.05.2020.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
5/21
7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar
Choudhary, while assailing the impugned order, primarily
submitted that in the entire service period, the petitioner has
received as many as Forty (40) rewards for his sincere discharge
of duty and has not received any major punishment, till the
impugned order came to be passed. The preliminary enquiry,
besides, it was conducted behind the back of the petitioner
without giving him any intimation of any such enquiry. The very
initiation of the departmental proceeding is based upon a video
made by an unknown person on 02.10.2018. But neither the
video clip/footage was made the part of documentary evidence,
nor the person who shot the video has been named in the list of
witnesses, by which and by whom, the articles of charges are
proposed to be sustained.
8. It is further contended by the learned Senior
Advocate that the proper procedure as enumerated in Rule 17 of
the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, “Rules, 2005)
was not followed while issuing the memo of charge which
clearly mandates that the substance or the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour as a definite and distinct article of
charges must be provided to the delinquent. The Enquiry Officer
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
6/21
also failed to follow the rules of disciplinary proceedings and
violated the principles of natural justice. Though the Enquiry
Officer examined several witnesses, however, the petitioner has
not been allowed an opportunity to cross-examine them. The
entire departmental proceeding was based upon the unverified
video, the authenticity of which had never been tested either
scientifically or by any agency/person.
9. The Enquiry Officers submitted a report ipsi dixit in
a perverse and perfunctory manner. None of the witnesses have
stated that they had actually seen the occurrence. Rather, they
have stated that from the video clip, it appeared that the
petitioner along with one Naresh Kumar were found talking to
the truck drivers. The truck driver, who was the star witness, he
has also not been examined. Besides, the department has failed
to consider that with respect to such incidents, neither any
complaint has been made nor any recovery was made from the
petitioner.
10. The disciplinary authority has also completely
abdicated the legal role which needs to be mandatorily
performed in conducting such quasi-judicial enquiry and in fact
performed an empty formality by approving the entire enquiry
report without discussing the defense of the petitioner nor
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
7/21
assigned any reasons for the rejection of the defense raised on
behalf of the petitioner. The appellate authority also failed in
discharge of its duty, as no reason has been disclosed, as to why
the grounds of appeal did not find favour. Besides, it is complete
non-speaking and mechanical, not showing any application of
mind.
11. To strengthen his submissions, reliance has also
been placed on the decisions rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Bharat Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,
(2021) 3 PLJR 473 as also in case of Sonu Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar & Ors., (2021) 4 PLJR 485.
12. Per contra, learned Advocate for the State refuting
the afore-referred contention has submitted that during
departmental proceeding, altogether eleven witnesses were
examined in presence of the petitioner and moreover, as per his
convenience, cross-examination was also done. Most of the
witnesses identified the petitioner in video clip and supported
the charges. After recording the deposition of the witnesses, the
petitioner was extended sufficient opportunity to produce
witness in support of his claim. But the petitioner did not
produce any witness. Hence, the Conducting Officers submitted
the enquiry report giving specific finding that the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
8/21
involved in extorting money from the truck driver. Bare reading
of the enquiry report, it is apparent that the Presenting Officer
succeeded in proving the allegation. The disciplinary authority
being agreed with the opinion of the Conducting Officer
inflicted the punishment of dismissal by order dated 18.09.2019.
Moreover, there is no error in the impugned order of
punishment. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur, upheld the
order of dismissal.
13. Learned Advocate for the State further urged that
the viral video was duly verified by the Deputy Superintendent
of Police and the witnesses during the course of enquiry,
identified the petitioner and furthermore, the petitioner admitted
the factum that in the viral video, he is present showing his own
money. Thus, the fact that in viral video, the petitioner is present
has not been denied. Hence, the correctness of the video clip
stood verified. The petitioner has never asked for the copy of
video clip in course of enquiry and in absence thereof, no
prejudice has been caused to him. On these grounds, prayer has
been made that the present writ petition is fit to be rejected.
14. This Court has carefully heard the learned Senior
Advocate/Advocates for the respective parties and meticulously
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
9/21
perused the materials available on record. It is pertinent to note
that charge of corruption in a disciplinary proceeding requires to
be proved to the hilt as it brings civil as well as criminal
consequences upon the employee concerned. He would be liable
to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest
penalty awardable in such cases. Therefore, such a grave charge
of quasi-criminal nature was required to be proved beyond any
shadow of doubt and to the hilt. In a case of such nature, there
cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. The amount
misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of
misappropriation that is relevant. [Vide Union of India & Ors.
Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78; U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115.]
15. This Court is also conscious of the settled position
and has no doubt that the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India would not interfere with the findings
recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary
authority or the Enquiry Officer as a matter of course. The Court
further cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the
role of the appellate authority. But it has rightly been held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of
Police & Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 10 that it does not mean that in no
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
10/21
circumstance can the Court interfere. The power of judicial
review available to the High 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 reason to
support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could
not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the
findings were perverse or made at the dictates of the superior
authority.
16. The proposition of law that a delinquent facing a
departmental enquiry is entitled to have all the relevant
statements, documents and other materials to enable him to have
a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the departmental
enquiry against the charges has been reinforced by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Bhagat Ram, (1975) 1
SCC 155 wherein the Court has ruled that it is unjust and unfair
to deny the government servant copies of statements of
witnesses examined during investigation and produced at the
inquiry in support of the charges levelled against the
government servant. Unless the statements are given to the
government servant, he will not be able to have an effective and
useful cross-examination.
17. The exclusive and specific charge levelled against
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
11/21
the petitioner is based upon a video clip. Now, in such
circumstances, the question would arise that as to whether non-
furnishing of the video clip, which forms part of the material
relied upon in the departmental proceedings to the delinquent
employee constitutes a gross violation of natural justice and
Rule 17(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2005. To answer the issue
aforenoted, this court deems it worth benefiting to refer a
decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal &
Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 1, especially paragraph numbers 60, 61, and
84, which are noted hereinbelow:-
“60. It may also be seen that
the person who gives this certificate can
be anyone out of several persons who
occupy a “responsible official position”
in relation to the operation of the relevant
device, as also the person who may
otherwise be in the “management of
relevant activities” spoken of in sub-
section (4) of Section 65-B. Considering
that such certificate may also be given
long after the electronic record has
actually been produced by the computer,
Section 65-B(4) makes it clear that it is
sufficient that such person gives the
requisite certificate to the “best of his
knowledge and belief”. [Obviously, the
word “and” between knowledge and
belief in Section 65-B(4) must be read as
“or”, as a person cannot testify to the
best of his knowledge and belief at the
same time.]
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
12/21
61. We may reiterate, therefore,
that the certificate required under Section
65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the
admissibility of evidence by way of
electronic record, as correctly held in
Anvar P.V. [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer,
(2014) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ)
27 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1
SCC (L&S) 108] , and incorrectly
“clarified” in Shafhi Mohammad [Shafhi
Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC
801 : (2018) 2 SCC 807 : (2018) 2 SCC
(Civ) 346 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 351 :
(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 860 : (2018) 1 SCC
(Cri) 865] . Oral evidence in the place of
such certificate cannot possibly suffice as
Section 65-B(4) is a mandatory
requirement of the law. Indeed, the
hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor
[Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426] ,
which has been followed in a number of
the judgments of this Court, can also be
applied. Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence
Act clearly states that secondary evidence
is admissible only if led in the manner
stated and not otherwise. To hold
otherwise would render Section 65-B(4)
otiose.
84. But Section 65-B(1) starts
with a non obstante clause excluding the
application of the other provisions and it
makes the certification, a precondition for
admissibility. While doing so, it does not
talk about relevancy. In a way, Sections
65-A and 65-B, if read together, mix up
both proof and admissibility, but not talk
about relevancy. Section 65-A refers to
the procedure prescribed in Section 65-B,
for the purpose of proving the contents of
electronic records, but Section 65-B
speaks entirely about the preconditions
for admissibility. As a result, Section 65-B
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
13/21
places admissibility as the first or the
outermost checkpost, capable of turning
away even at the border, any electronic
evidence, without any enquiry, if the
conditions stipulated therein are not
fulfilled.”
18. The memo of charge admittedly does not contain
the video clip based upon which the department initiated to
prove the charges, nor the person who had shot the video, has
been produced as a witness. Besides, no one has made a
complaint against the petitioner with regard to extorting money
or accepting bribe from truck drivers.
19. This Court has also carefully examined the
statement of the witnesses. The witness, Sri Lalbabu Yadav,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jamui, merely supported his
report dated 02.10.2018 and asserted that Cook Shankar
Chaudhary and Rajendra Paswan identified that the person in
the video clip is the member of C Company. The witness, Sri Jai
Shankar Mishra, deposed that the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Jamui, enquired the matter in his presence. Witness Sri
Pramod Kumar has asserted that he saw the video and identified
the petitioner and one Naresh Prasad, who was in civil dress.
Similarly, Sri Suman Jha supported his statement and admitted
the presence of the petitioner at the time of occurrence.
Likewise, Sri Naresh Prasad and Sri Rajesh Kumar, Sri Aman
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
14/21
Kumar, Sri Sujeet Kumar and Sri Shankar Chaudhary identified
the petitioner in the video clip. So far Sri Rajendra Paswan is
concerned, this witness accepted his signature over the Letter
No. 588/C and, as such, he was formal in nature. Sri Munna Jha
was also the witness. On the basis of whose statements, other
letters were marked as exhibits.
20. Upon discussion of the statement of the witnesses,
what is evident is, that none of the witnesses have said that he
had seen the petitioner while accepting the bribe or extorting
money. But stated only with regard to identification of the
petitioner in video clip with co-delinquent Hawaldar Naresh
Prasad.
21. In absence of the video clip, which is not the part
of the memo of charge, when the witnesses have not supported
the charge of extorting money from a truck driver, in the opinion
of this Court, the link between the charge and the finding of
guilt is completely missing. There is no confrontation with
regard to the position of law that the yardstick which is adopted
in the departmental proceeding to prove the charges is based
upon preponderance of possibilities and not to be proved beyond
its reasonable duty. But that does not absolve the Enquiry
Officer to assign the reason, which certainly demonstrate as to
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
15/21
how he reached to the conclusion of guilt.
22. In the case of Bharat Prasad Yadav (supra) on
which reliance has been placed by learned Senior Advocate for
the petitioner, a video clip has become viral on WhatsApp, in
which the petitioner was seen drinking liquor leading to
institution of the FIR as well as departmental proceeding, that
finally culminated into punishment of dismissal. The learned co-
ordinate Bench while finding serious lapse in the proceeding
categorically observed that the enquiry report only speaks about
the viral video on WhatsApp and nothing more and as far as the
CD is concerned, the same has not been proved during the
course of the enquiry by resorting to the procedure established
by law, as such is inadmissible by way of evidence, as per the
Evidence Act, 1892. The Court further observed that neither the
maker of the video clip, has been examined by the prosecution
as a witness nor his mobile has been recovered, much less
exhibited and moreover, no eyewitness to the alleged incident
has been examined by the prosecution in the aforesaid
departmental inquiry, resulting in the entire inquiry proceedings
having been rendered nugatory on account of no evidence being
available on record to substantiate the allegations leveled against
the petitioner, besides the entire inquiry proceeding is resorted
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
16/21
upon surmises and conjectures.
23. Similarly, in the case of Sonu Kumar (supra),
wherein the delinquent was also seen as consuming alcohol in a
video clip, which had become viral leading to institution of FIR
as well as initiation of a departmental proceeding against him,
and that also ended in the penalty of his dismissal. The Court
after considering the submissions held that it is the case of no
evidence to substantiate the allegation against the petitioner of
consumption of alcohol and placing reliance upon the decision
of Bharat Prasad Yadav (supra) held in paragraph numbers 15,
16 and 17 as follows:-
“15. I have carefully perused
the materials on record and I have also
considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties. This is not in dispute
that a video clip which had become viral
in which the petitioner was seen
consuming adequate akin to alcohol was
the basis for initiation of equiry and
subsequent action against the petitioner.
From the First Information Report, it
appears that the Sub Inspector of Police-
cum-Station House Officer, Supaul, had
required one Deonanandan Das to
enquire into the allegation arising out of
video clip getting viral. The said
Deonandan Das, during that enquiry, had
allegedly found the petitioner drinking
alcohol in a glass with a bottle filled with
alcohol present in front of him. The said
Deonanandan Das appears to be the only
person who had allegedly seen the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
17/21petitioner consuming something in the
glass. Deonanandan Das was not
examined as witness for the department to
prove the allegation. No evidence was led
before the Inquiring Authority that there
was alcohol in the said bottle and what
the petitioner was drinking was alcohol.
It is an admitted position that no breath
analyzer test was conducted nor blood
sample of the petitioner was taken for
chemical examination to substantiate the
allegation that the petitioner had
consumed alcohol.
16. In the aforesaid
background, I find substance in the
submission made on behalf of the
petitioner that it is a case of no evidence
to substantiate the allegation against the
petitioner of consumption of alcohol. He
has rightly placed reliance on a co-
ordinate Bench decision rendered in the
case of Bharat Prasad Yadav (supra)
whereby and whereunder, taking note of
cited Supreme Court’s decision in case of
Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank
reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and
Kuldeep Singh v. The Commission of
Police reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10, order
imposing punishment has been interfered
with in similar circumstance.
17. The issue of evidentiary
value of electronic evidence in the present
matter does not arise as there was no
such evidence led during the
departmental enquiry in support of the
charge framed against the petitioner. In
such view of the matter, I am of the
considered opinion that the department
miserably failed to bring home the charge
against the petitioner that he was
consuming alcohol or was in possession
of alcohol, in the absence of cogent
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
18/21evidence adduced by the department
during the departmental enquiry.”
24. It would also be worth benefiting to refer a
decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 518,
where the Court while emphasizing the principle of natural
justice reinforced that:-
“4. …..The procedure at the
enquiry must be consistent with the
principles of natural justice. Principles of
natural justice require that the copy of the
document if any relied upon against the
party charged should be given to him and
he should be afforded opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses and to
produce his own witnesses in his defence.
If findings are recorded against the
government servant placing reliance on a
document which may not have been
disclosed to him or the copy whereof may
not have been supplied to him during the
enquiry when demanded, that would
contravene principles of natural justice
rendering the enquiry, and the
consequential order of punishment illegal
and void. These principles are well settled
by a catena of decisions of this Court. We
need not refer to them. However, it is not
necessary that each and every document
must be supplied to the delinquent
government servant facing the charges,
instead only material and relevant
documents are necessary to be supplied to
him. If a document even though
mentioned in the memo of charges is not
relevant to the charges or if it is not
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
19/21referred to or relied upon by the enquiry
officer or the punishing authority in
holding the charges proved against the
government servant, no exception can be
taken to the validity of the proceedings or
the order. If the document is not used
against the party charged the ground of
violation of principles of natural justice
cannot successfully be raised. The
violation of principles of natural justice
arises only when a document, copy of
which may not have been supplied to the
party charged when demanded is used in
recording finding of guilt against him.”
25. After going through the above referred decisions
and upon careful examination of the memo of charge vis-a-vis
enquiry report, this court is of the firm opinion that the very
document/material, which form the basis of the charge is the
relevant document/material and withholding of the same from
the delinquent amounts not only to arbitrary action, but also
colourable exercise of the power, vested in the prosecution. Non
supply of such document/material is bound to cause serious
prejudice to the delinquent. Further taking up the facts of this
case that once the entire charge of extorting money is rested
upon a video clip, the authenticity of the same must be verified
scientifically and the copy of which must be produced to the
delinquent and, as such, any inaction on the part of the
respondent would certainly go to the root of fairness and failed
to withstand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
20/21
26. Accordingly, this Court answers the issue that non-
furnishing of video clip which forms the part of foundational
material and having relied upon in the departmental proceeding
to the delinquent employee, in absence of any witnesses to
support the charge, prima facie constitutes a gross violation of
natural justice and the provisions of Rule 17(3) and (4) of the
Rules 2005.
27. Once this Court has come to the conclusion that
the enquiry report suffers from perversity and lacking any
evidence to reach the conclusion of guilt, the order of the
disciplinary authority concurring finding of Enquiry Officer and
inflicting the punishment of dismissal also hit by the vice of
illegality and without application of mind, besides violative of
principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the order of dismissal
as contained in Letter No. 963/2019 dated 18.09.2019 as well as
the appellate order issued under Memo No. 347 dated
21.03.2020, communicated vide Memo No. 891 dated
07.05.2020, also held to be unsustainable in law and are hereby
set aside.
28. The writ petition stands allowed.
29. Since the impugned orders have already been set-
aside, the petitioner shall be entitled to get all the consequential
Patna High Court CWJC No.12297 of 2021 dt.17-07-2026
21/21
benefits, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vrs. Kranti
Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) & Ors., (2013) 10
SCC 324, preferably within a period of eight weeks, from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
30. There shall be no order as to cost.
31. The office is directed to ensure that the record of
the departmental proceeding be handed over to the counsel for
the State.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 07.07.2026 Uploading Date 18.07.2026 Transmission Date NA
