Patna High Court
Mahesh Jha vs The State Of Bihar on 23 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5931 of 2022
======================================================
Mahesh Jha S/o Late Krishna Jha R/o Village and P.O.-Nagwas, P.S.-Arer,
District-Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna.
5. District Program Officer (Establishment), Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Smt. Binita Singh ( Sc 28 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-04-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
"1. That a writ of Certiorari be issued:-
(i) For quashing the official order dated
20.02.2020
passed by the Director, Primary
Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna whereby in
exercise of power under rule-43-a of the
Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 full pension of
the petitioner who superannuated from the
post of Block Education Officer, Tarari,
Bhojpur, was withheld permanently.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
2/16
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition
are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as the
Block Education Officer, Tarari, Bhojpur. He superannuated from
service on 31.01.2015. An objection was raised vide letter no.
5838 dated 27.09.2012 with regard to the experience certificate
submitted by one Renu Kumari, who was appointed as an
Assistant Teacher in the Middle School, Nauwa, Tarari and the
Secretary Cum Block Development Officer, Block Recruitment
Unit, Tarari was asked to look into the matter and submit his
report, as to whether or not the said experience certificate is
genuine. Pursuant thereto, the Block Development Officer vide
letter no. 167 dated 04.03.2013 wrote a letter to the Headmaster, to
ask Renu Kumari to get her experience certificate verified from the
District Office and produce no objection certificate with regard to
the same. Vide Memo No. 3893 dated 17.06.2013, issued under the
signature of the District Programme Officer (Establishment),
Bhojpur, a request was made to the Block Development Officer,
Tarari to verify the original merit list of Renu Kumari and her
testimonials to ascertain the fact that whether her appointment was
made on the basis of the said experience certificate or not. The
District Programme Officer, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda certified the
experience certificate of Renu Kumari to be genuine and valid and
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
3/16
pursuant thereto, the petitioner vide Memo No. 420 dated
30.06.2013 requested the B.D.O., Tarari to take further necessary
action. A complaint was filed by the husband of Renu Kumari
before the Vigilance Investigation Bureau on 03.09.2013, with an
allegation that the petitioner has asked for Rs. 20,000/- from him
for release of arrears of salary of his wife. On the basis of the said
complaint, pre and post trap memo were prepared on 10.09.2013
and 11.09.2013 respectively, wherein it was alleged that the
petitioner took bribe to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and asked orderly
Sudama Singh to keep it. Vigilance P.S. Case No. 59 of 2013 was
registered on 11.09.2013 under different sections of Prevention of
Corruption Act. The petitioner was taken into custody. The
petitioner was served with the charge memo dated 12.03.2014,
wherein certain charges were levelled against the petitioner and the
petitioner was directed to file his reply to the show cause, which
was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on
20.05.2014, wherein he denied all the charges levelled against him
and explained the circumstances in which he requested the Block
Development Officer, Tarari to take necessary action with regard
to payment of salary/honorarium to Renu Kumari. The enquiry
officer submitted his enquiry report before the disciplinary
authority on 05.06.2014, whereby he proceeded to hold the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
4/16
petitioner guilty of the charges, mentioned in the memo of charge.
The disciplinary authority vide letter dated 14.08.2014 directed the
petitioner to file his second show cause reply, which was duly
replied by the petitioner on 24.09.2014, wherein he submitted that
the enquiry officer proceeded without any justifiable basis and the
enquiry officer did not conduct the enquiry with impartial mind.
The disciplinary authority, who was the Director, Primary
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna vide memo no. 145 dated
25.02.2015 while concurring with the findings of the enquiry
officer, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service under
Rule 14(11) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and by another order
contained in Memo No. 205 dated 02.04.2015, full pension of the
petitioner was withheld permanently under Rule 43 (b) of the
Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The petitioner, being aggrieved with
the order of punishment filed C.W.J.C. No. 7321 of 2016 before
this Court. The said writ petition filed by the petitioner was
allowed vide order dated 30.11.2016 passed by a learned Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court by holding that the forfeiture of the
pension of the petitioner passed in purported exercise of power
under Rule 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules by the Director,
Primary Education cannot be upheld and is accordingly quashed
and set aside. However, liberty was granted to the respondent-State
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
5/16
to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and considering
that the matter relates to a superannuated employee, the same was
directed to be concluded within three months from the date of
passing of the order. The petitioner again moved before this Court
by filing C.W.J.C. No. 14710 of 2017 for making payment of post
retiral dues as well as pension and its arrears. During pendency of
the writ petition, vide impugned order contained in Memo No. 229
dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Director, Primary Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna, full pension of the petitioner was
withheld in exercise of powers contained in Rule 43(a) of the
Bihar Pension Rules. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order
dated 20.02.2020 filed an interlocutory application bearing I.A.
No. 01 of 2020 in C.W.J.C. No. 14710 of 2017, whereby he
challenged the Memo No. 229 dated 20.02.2020, however vide
order dated 16.11.2021, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner
was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order
dated 20.02.2020 in a fresh proceeding.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Rule 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules authorizes the Provincial
Government to withhold full pension or any part of it on proof of
serious crime or grave misconduct. Clause 47 read with Clause 60-
c of the General Clause Act, 1897 defines the Provincial
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
6/16
Government to mean the State Government to be headed by the
Governor. He further submits that Rules of Executive Business,
Bihar, 1979 framed under Article 166(2) of the Constitution of
India provides the authorities competent to sign orders of the State
Government and the Director, Primary Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna has not been authorized to sign or authenticate orders
on behalf of the State Government. He further submits that the
impugned order passed by the Director, Primary Education is in
teeth of the provisions contained in Rule 17(3)(ii)(b), 17(4), 11 and
14 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 in as much as from perusal of the
memo of charge, it would transpire that no list of documents or list
of witnesses were provided with memo of charge and even the
presenting officer was not appointed. He further submits that
during the course of the departmental enquiry, no witnesses were
examined to prove the documents, which were relied upon by the
enquiry officer and in absence of examination of the witnesses, the
petitioner was deprived of his rights to cross examine the
witnesses to prove his innocence. Even the request made by the
petitioner to adduce evidence and witnesses on his behalf was not
acceded by the enquiry officer. Even the orderly Sudama Singh,
from whose residence the alleged Rs. 20,000/- is said to have been
recovered, was not examined, thereby, the petitioner was denied
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
7/16
the opportunity to rebut the charges, which were levelled against
him. Even the complainant, on whose written complaint, the
proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, was not examined,
which greatly prejudiced the case of the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits
that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted in complete
violation of the provisions contained in Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and
relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab
National Bank & Ors.), wherein in paragraph no. 14 it has been
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
8/16placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which
could not have been treated as evidence.”
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and
relies on a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 505 (Jai Prakash Saini
versus Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. &
Ors.) wherein in paragraph nos. 17 & 18, it has been held as
follows:-
“17. From the decisions of this Court in Sur Enamel
(supra) and Kharak Singh (supra), followed in
Chamoli District Cooperative (supra), which
deals with similar service rules as are applicable
here, it is now settled that unless the charged
employee accepts his guilt in clear terms, an
enquiry on the charges drawn against him would
have to be held. In the enquiry, the
employer/department would have to take steps
first to lead evidence against the
workmen/delinquent charged and give an
opportunity to him to cross examine those
witnesses. Only thereafter, the
workmen/delinquent shall be asked whether he
wants to lead any evidence and/or submit an
explanation about the evidence led against him.
Even in a case based solely on documentary
evidence, unless the relied upon documents are
admitted by the charged employee, a witness
would have to be examined to prove those
documents and when so examined, the witness
would have to be tendered for cross-examination.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
9/16
18. In the instant case, we find that the department
had not produced any witness in the enquiry even
though the charges levelled upon the appellant
were denied by him. Therefore, in our view, the
enquiry stood vitiated. Once the enquiry stood
vitiated, the consequential order of
punishment/recovery cannot be sustained. We
therefore allow this appeal. The impugned
judgment and order of the High Court is set aside.
The writ petition of the appellant stands allowed
to the extent indicated below. The order of
dismissal and consequential recovery is set aside.
The Federation is, however, at liberty to hold a de
novo enquiry, if it so desires, within a period of six
months from the date of this order. If the
Federation does not hold de novo enquiry as
permitted above, the appellant shall be entitled to
reinstatement with benefit of continuity in service
including arrears of salary after adjusting
suspension allowance, if any, paid already. In case
the Federation chooses to hold an enquiry, it shall
reinstate the appellant and place him under
suspension till completion of the enquiry and
during this period pay suspension allowance as
may be payable in accordance with law. In case
de novo enquiry is held, other service benefits
including arrears of salary as well as benefits of
continuity in service shall depend on the outcome
of the enquiry.”
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State-
respondents submits that no order was passed by this Hon’ble
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
10/16
Court in the earlier round of litigation, which was filed by the
petitioner bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7321 of 2016 with regard to the
points raised by the petitioner, that the Director, Primary
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna is not the State within the
meaning of 43-A of the Bihar Pension Rules. He further submits
that the petitioner was given due opportunity to participate in the
departmental proceeding and he duly participated in the
proceeding. He never raised any grievance with regard to non-
examination of the witnesses or not providing any document to
him. He further submits by referring to paragraph no.8 of the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 that the
proceeding vide Memo No. 1814 dated 14.11.2019 has been
initiated against the petitioner after having due approval of the
Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna as
well as the departmental minister, which had finally culminated
into passing of the impugned order contained in Memo No. 229
dated 20.02.2020 issued by the Director, Primary Education, Bihar,
Patna whereby in terms of Rule 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules,
the full pension of the petitioner has been forfeited. He submits
that the Governments means the Head of the Department and in
the present case, the order was passed after approval of the
Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
11/16
of Bihar, Patna as well as the Departmental Minister. Therefore,
there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.02.2020. He
further submits that the statement made in paragraph-8 of the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 has not
been denied by the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the State refers to and relied
on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in
2015 (2) SCC 610 (Union of India & Ors. Versus P.
Gunasekaran) wherein in paragraph nos. 12 & 13, it has been
held as follows:-
“12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
disturbing to note that the High Court has acted
as an appellate authority in the disciplinary
proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence
before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I
was accepted by the disciplinary authority and
was also endorsed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High
Court is not and cannot act as a second court of
first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its
powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of
the evidence. The High Court can only see
whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf;
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
12/16
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice
in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant or extraneous
considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable
person could ever have arrived at such
conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to
admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the
finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case
the same has been conducted in accordance with
law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
13/16
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may
appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience.”
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the record, it appears that while issuing memo
of charge, no list of witness/witnesses or the list of documents
were provided to the petitioner, on which the department intended
to rely during course of the enquiry. Even, no presenting officer
was appointed by the department to present the case of the
department in the departmental proceeding. The enquiry officer
himself assumed the role of the presenting officer to present the
case of the department and even the documents, which are said to
have been relied by the enquiry officer, were not proved by any of
the witnesses. Further the documents, which were relied upon by
the enquiry officer, during course of departmental proceeding,
were not proved by their respective authors and in absence of the
same, the documents remained doubtful. The petitioner was denied
an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and further, despite
his request to the effect that he intended to produce the defence
witnesses in his favour, was denied an opportunity to do so. It
further appears that while passing the impugned order dated
20.02.2020, the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
14/16
show cause notice was not considered by the disciplinary authority
and he proceeded to pass the punishment order. The entire
departmental proceeding was conducted in complete violations of
the provisions contained in Rule 17(4)(ii), 14 and 17 of the Bihar
CCA Rules, since, admittedly no list of imputation, list of
witness/witnesses and documents were provided to the petitioner.
No presenting officer was appointed, no opportunity was granted
to the petitioner to lead oral evidence or to cross examine the
witnesses and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to
adduce evidence in his favour.
11. Considering the above, this Court comes to the
conclusion that order contained in Memo No. 229 dated
20.02.2020 deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
12. The petitioner is entitled for 100% pension. The
authorities are under obligation of calculate the arrears of pension
of the petitioner from the date of his superannuation, till the date of
its actual payment and to start pension within a period of three
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order .
13. If the entire arrears of pension and the current
pension will not be credited in the account of the petitioner within
the aforementioned period of three months, the petitioner shall be
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
15/16
entitled for interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the
writ petition till the date of its actual payment.
14. The matter is not being remitted back to the
respondent authorities since the High Court under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India is entitled to interfere when the finding
of fact is based on no evidence and if in every case where no valid
evidence is laid at the enquiry proceeding, there is a remand made,
it would be offering a premium to the negligence of the
management/disciplinary authority and condoning the levity with
which the departmental enquiry was conducted. It is the
disciplinary authority, who appoints the Enquiry Officer and the
Presenting Officer and it is expected that the Presenting Officer
would be well versed in the procedures and also be informed in the
manner in which evidence has to be laid before the Enquiry
Officer, to prove the misconduct, alleged against a delinquent
employee. In a disciplinary enquiry proceeding, it is also the trite
principle that the standard of proof is preponderance of probability
as distinguished from proof beyond reasonable doubt, as would be
required in a criminal prosecution. However, if there is no
evidence laid at the enquiry, there is no question of any
preponderance of probability being drawn to find the allegations
proved nor can the delinquent be penalised on the basis of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5931 of 2022 dt.23-04-2026
16/16
peremptory finding without any valid evidence. The disciplinary
authority had an opportunity in a properly constituted enquiry
proceeding and if in such a proceeding no evidence was laid, the
punishment of dismissal has to be found to be imposed on no valid
evidence.
15. The writ petition is allowed.
16. Pending application, if any, shall also disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 29.04.2026 Transmission Date NA
