Patna High Court
Md. Naushad Alam vs The State Of Bihar on 12 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3750 of 2023
======================================================
Md. Naushad Alam Son of Abdul Gaffar Resident of Village-Marhiya, P.O.-
Lauriya, P.S. Lauriya, Dist.-West Champaran, At Present Posted as Sub-
Inspector of Police at Hajipur Town Police Station Hajipur, Dist.-Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Dept. of Home and
Affairs, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar Patna.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Welfare) Bihar Police Head
Quarter, Bihar at Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Devision at Muzaffarpur.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur.
6. The Sub-Divisional Prosecuting Officer, Hajipur at Hajipur.
7. The Sub-Divisional Prosecuting Officer, Mahua, Dist.-Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate
: Mr. Shivanand Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Andili Ambrose, Advocate
: Ms. Amisha Pranash, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
: Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-3
: Ms. Rupali Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
the following reliefs:-
I. For quashing the order contained in
Memo no. 3690 dated 1.10.2022
passed by the Inspector General of
Police Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
2/25
whereby and where under the appeal
of the petitioner was dismissed and
order of punishment contained in
Memo no. 1833 dated 28.4.2022
passed by the Superintendent of
police Vaishali at Hajipur in
departmental proceeding no. 67/21
has been affirmed.
II. For quashing the order contained in
Memo no 1833 dated 28.4.2022 and
Vaishali District order no. 880/2022
passed by the Superintendent of
police, Vaishali at Hajipur in
departmental proceeding no. 67/21
whereby and where under the
petitioner has been awarded
punishment of stopping one year
increment of the petitioner.
And the petitioner has been also been
barred from from holding the post of
Station Head Officer for the next 10
years.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that while the petitioner was posted as Station House Officer
(SHO), Rajapakar Police Station, then on 12.10.2021 a first
information report was lodged by one Atul Kumar giving rise
to Rajakar P.S. Case No. 266 of 2021 under Sections 302, 328,
120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against named accused
persons. One day prior to the date of occurrence, the petitioner
on secret information conducted raid at a place as well as house
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
3/25
of one Shubham Kumar from where Homeopathic Medicine,
some bottles of imperial blue wine, wine bottle wrappers, 12
empty bottle of 375 ml. imperial blue wine and 18 empty
bottles of Royal Stag wine was recovered from the house of
Shubham Kumar and upon enquiry the name of Bulbul Jha @
Rajesh Kumar Mishra transpired in doing illegal business of
liquor, which resulted in lodging of Rajapakar P.S. Case No.
263 of 2021 dated 11.10.2021 under difference Sections of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018. Subsequently, the
house of Bulbul Jha @ Rajesh Kumar Mishra was raided
where several empty bottles of Homeopathic medicine and
poisonous liquor were recovered for which again a First
Information Report bearing Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 267 of
2021 was registered.
4. It has further been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that a report was submitted by the
S.D.P.O., Mahua on 13.10.2021 before the Superintendent of
Police, Vaishali wherein all the facts related to the death of
father of Atul Kumar and the raids conducted by the petitioner
and recovery of liquor and Homeopathic medicines were
mentioned but no allegation of dereliction of duty was found
against the petitioner. Again vide another letter on the same
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
4/25
date i.e. 13.10.2021 was issued under the signature of the
S.D.P.O, Mahua adressed to the Superintendent of Police,
Vaishali, a report was submitted with regard to Rajapakar
Police Station case wherein it was informed that two FIRs
were lodged against accused Bulbul Jha @ Rajesh Kumar
Mishra and upon raid different Homeopathic medicines, liquor
etc. have been found. Even in the said report, no allegation was
made with regard to dereliction of duty against the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that vide Memo No. 12544 dated 08.11.2021 issued under the
signature of the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, a show-
cause was issued to the petitioner that despite direction from
the Police head quarter that the Officer In-charge of the Police
Station concerned will be the investigating officer of the first
serious offence registered in the Police Station of every month,
but even then he gave investigation of Rajapakar P.S. Case No.
266 of 2021 to Pankaj Sharma. It was further mentioned in the
show cause that total prohibition is there in the State of Bihar
since April, 2016, but even then the petitioner is not taking
interest in these type of occurrences and the petitioner was
directed to submit his show cause reply within 24 hours that
why departmental proceeding be not initiated against him. In
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
5/25
compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted his
explanation/show-cause to the notice within the stipulated time
i.e. 09.11.2021 whereby he denied all the charges levelled
against him in the show cause notice, but the Superintendent of
Police, Vaishali being not satisfied with the reply put the
petitioner under suspension and departmental proceeding was
initiated against him. The memo of charge was served upon the
petitioner on 09.11.2021 wherein certain charges were levelled
against him and the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Hajipur was
appointed as a conducting officer and the Sub Inspector
Pramod Kumar Singh of Hajipur was appointed as the
presenting officer. The suspension of the petitioner was
subsequently revoked on 08.12.2021.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that after initiation of the departmental proceeding and
after serving the memo of charge, no show cause
notice/explanation was ever asked from the petitioner with
regard to the charges levelled against him, while the enquiry
officer proceeded ahead with the departmental proceeding
without his knowledge. The petitioner on his own appeared
before the conducting officer and submitted his
explanation/show-cause on 23.03.2022 wherein he denied all
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
6/25
the charges levelled against him. Even after submission of the
show cause reply, the petitioner was not provided with any
opportunity by the conducting officer either to cross-examine
the witnesses or to adduce his defence witnesses which is
mandate of law as per the provisions contained under Rule
17(3) & (4) of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules,
2005. It has further been submitted that just after three days of
submission of the show cause reply by the petitioner, the
conducting officer submitted his enquiry report before the
Superintendent of Police, Vaishali on 26.03.2022 wherein he
found the charges to be proved against the petitioner.
Thereafter, vide Memo No. 1535 dated 05.04.2022 issued
under the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali,
the petitioner was issued second show cause notice and in
compliance thereof, he filed a detailed reply to the second show
cause notice before the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali,
wherein he again denied the charges and explained in detail his
conduct. The Superintendent of Police-Cum-Disciplinary
Authority without considering the second show cause reply
submitted by the petitioner, found the charges to be proved
against the petitioner and proceeded to award the punishment
of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect which will
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
7/25
be equivalent to two black marks and debarred him from
holding the post of Officer In-charge/S.H.O. for a period of 10
years. It was further directed that for the period under
suspension, apart from the amount which has been paid to the
petitioner, no further payments will be made to him and the
suspension period will be adjusted in the half earned leave.
Being aggrieved with the punishment order, the petitioner filed
appeal before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority
without considering the defence taken by the petitioner in his
memo of appeal, proceeded to reject the appeal of the petitioner
in a mechanical manner vide memo no. 3690 dated
01.10.2022.
7
. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that from the memo of charge it will appear that the charges
against the petitioner were for negligence in keeping a watch
upon the FIR named accused and for not investigating the case
which was of serious nature, himself. It has further been
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was
due to effort of the petitioner that accused Bulbul Jha, who was
an accused in three criminal cases and was absconding, was
arrested and the petitioner, during his short tenure recovered
huge quantity of NDPS and illegal liquor within the jurisdiction
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
8/25
of his police station. It has further been submitted that prior to
institution of Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 266 of 2021, the
petitioner had conducted raid at different places and recovered
illicit liquor and Homeopathic medicines for which Rajapakar
P.S. Case no. 263 of 2021 was instituted.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that since on 11.10.2021, the petitioner proceeded for
raid for recovery of illegal wine and Homeopathic medicines in
the morning at 05:00 A.M. itself, due to which suffered from
diarrhea, for which he was admitted in a hospital, therefore, the
investigation of the case was handed over to the Pankaj
Sharma. He further submits that the petitioner had sent the
liquor and the Homeopathic medicine to the FSL laboratory on
13.11.2021 and the report was received on 12.01.2022, wherein
it was found that ethyl alcohol along with methyl alcohol was
available in the viscera and blood sample of the deceased.
9. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was never
given any opportunity to submit his show cause reply before
initiation of the departmental proceeding and the copy of the
enquiry report was not handed over to the petitioner along with
second show cause notice and he was not granted any
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
9/25
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as well as an
opportunity to adduce defence witnesses in the departmental
proceeding. The departmental proceeding was conducted in a
hurry and the impugned order of punishment has been passed
in violation of the principles of natural justice.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies
upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Civil Appeal No. 1815 of 2007 in the case of Inspector Prem
Chand Versus Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors.
Wherein in paragraph nos.5, 7, 8 and 9 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has held as follows:-
“5. The original application filed by the
appellant before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, Delhi, questioning the validity
or legality of the said order of
punishment as also the appellate
order was dismissed by the Tribunal
by its judgment dated 15.2.2005. A
writ petition preferred there against
by the appellant has been dismissed
by a Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court opining:
…We have also noted that in such a
matter, if the plea of the petitioner
is accepted and the accused not
accepting the bribe money is to be
a reason for not seizing the bribe
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
10/25money there was no need to launch
prosecution against the accused.
This not having been done resulted
in the acquittal of the accused. The
reasoning given by the Tribunal,
therefore, does not warrant
interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that even if it
is assumed that there is failure to
seize the currency notes, this does
not amount to misconduct. The
Tribunal has analyzed various
definitions of the word
“misconduct” and we are in
agreement with the conclusion of
the Tribunal. Furthermore,
misconduct need not be founded on
a positive act but can also be
based upon an omission of duty
required to be done by the public
servant.
7. Before adverting to the question
Involved in the matter, we may see
what the term ‘misconduct’ means. In
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram
Singh Ex. Constable
MANU/SC/0426/1992:
[1992]3SCR634, it was stated:
Misconduct has been defined in
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth
Edition at page 999, thus:
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
11/25A transgression of some
established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction from duty, unlawful
behavior, wilful in character,
improper or wrong behavior, its
synonyms are misdemeanor,
offense, but not negligence or
carelessness.
Misconduct in office has been
defined as:
Any unlawful behavior by a public
officer in relation to the duties of
his office, willful in character.
Term embraces acts which the
officer holder had no right to
perform, acts performed
improperly, and failure to act in
the face of an affirmative duty to
act.
8. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon,
3rd edition, at page 3027, the term
‘misconduct’ has been defined as under:
The term ‘misconduct’ implies, a
wrongful intention, and not a mere
error of Judgment.
Misconduct is not necessarily the
same thing as conduct involving
moral turpitude.
The word ‘misconduct’ is a relative
term, and has to be construed with
reference to the subject matter and
the context wherein the term occurs,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
12/25having regard to the scope of the Act
or statute which is being construed.
Misconduct literally means wrong
conduct or improper conduct.
[See also Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.
v. T.K. Raju (2006) IILLJ113SC
MANU/SC/1083/2006:
9. It is not in dispute that a disciplinary
proceeding was initiated against the
appellant In terms of the provisions of
the Delhi Police (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1980. It was, therefore,
necessary for the disciplinary authority
to arrive at a finding of fact that the
appellant was guilty of an unlawful
behavior in relation to discharge of his
duties in service, which was willful in
character. No such finding was arrived
at. An error of judgment, as noticed
hereinbefore, per se is not a misconduct.
A negligence simpliciter also would not
be a misconduct. In Union of India and
Ors, v. J. Ahmed MANU/SC/0481/1979:
(1979)IILLJ14SC, whereupon Mr.
Sharan himself has placecd reliance, this
Court held so stating:
Code of conduct as set out in the
Conduct Rules clearly Indicates
the conduct expected of a member
of the service. It would follow that
conduct which is blameworthy for
the Government servant in the
context of Conduct Rules would be
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
13/25misconduct. If a servant conducts
himself in a way inconsistent with
due and faithful discharge of his
duty in service, it is misconduct
(see Pierce v. Foster 17 Q.B. 536,
542). A disregard of an essential
condition of the contract of service
may constitute misconduct [see
Laws v. London Chronicle
(Indicator Newspapers) 1959 1
WLR 698. This view was adopted
in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad
Tiwari v. Divisional
Superintendent, Central Railway,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur
MANU/MH/0220/1959: (1960)
ILLJ167Bom, and Satubha K.
Naghela v. Moosa Raza
MANU/GJ/0109/1968:
(1969)10GLR23. The High Court
has noted the definition of
misconduct in Stroud’s Judicial
Dictionary which runs as under:
Misconduct means, misconduct
arising from III motive; acts of
negligence, errors of judgment,
or innocent mistake, do not
constitute such misconduct.
[Emphasis supplied]”
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Civil Appeal No. 7431 of 2008 in the case of Roop Singh Negi
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
14/25
Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. wherein in paragraph
no.10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:-
“10. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding
is a quasi judicial proceeding. The
Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial
function. The charges leveled 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. 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. Appellant
being an emplovee of the bank, the said
confession should have been proved.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
15/25Some 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.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
relies upon a judgment dated 10.12.2025 passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 7478 of 2023 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein
in paragraph no.20 and 22, it has been held as follows:-
20. From the conspectus of the aforesaid two
exhaustive decisions of the coordinate
Benches of this Court is that the
administrative authority acting in the
capacity of a quasi-judicial authority can
not enter and undertake a disciplinary
proceeding imposing punishment, much
less, revise and substitute it with a much
harsher punishment with a per-determined
mindset. The concept of strict liability by
virtue of ‘deemed guilt of a public servant
in absence of any cogent material
establishing direct connivance, complicity,
negligence or involvement is totally alien
to the service jurisprudence. A public
servant, no doubt, has to act and perform
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
16/25the duties of his office diligently and to the
best of his abilities, but territorial
responsibility can not be ipso facto
equated with strict liability or deemed
guilt, in absence of negligence or laxity
being deliberate, which is evidenced based
on cogent materials available on record.
22. As already noted by the afore-quoted
decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this
Court in Ajay Kumar (supra) and Mukesh
Kumar Paswan (supra), that deemed guilt
can not be sustained particularly in cases
where there is a total absence of material
to establish the guilt, connivance,
complicity, negligence or laxity of the
petitioner, independently.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies on a judgment dated 29.10.2024 passed by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8071 of 2023,
wherein in paragraph no. 19, 22 and 27 it has been held as
follows:-
19. As regard to the issue involved in the
present case, I also find it proper to
reproduce paragraph nos. 34, 35 and 42
of the judgment passed by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 737
of 2023 dated 05.05.2023, which is, inter
alia, reproduced hereinafter:
34. Upon going through the entire
materials as discussed hereinabove,
this Court has no iota of doubt that
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
17/25there was an inherent defect in the
framing of charge itself inasmuch
as a bare perusal of it would show
that it has been framed on the
direction of the Director General of
Police, Bihar vide his letter no. 48
dated 29.11.2020 addressed to the
Senior Superintendent of Police
(Annexure ‘1’ to the writ
application). In this letter the
Director General of Police has
referred his own direction
contained in letter no. 63 dated
24.11.2022, paragraph ‘3’ whereof
pre-judges the guilt of the S.H.O.
and the Chowkidar in case of
recovery of illicit liquor from the
area of the police station. This has
no statutory sanction. Once the
Director General of Police issued
this direction to the S.SP, the
S.S.P/S.P. had no opportunity to
apply his own independent mind as
to whether the petitioner is liable to
be proceeded against or of the kind
of charges may be framed against
him. The direction was coming from
the top of the police echelon as if
on mere recovery of illicit liquor of
25 liters from the Kankarbagh
Police Station area, the Officer-in-
Charge of the said police station is
liable to be held guilty.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
18/25
35. In the opinion of this Court,
paragraph ‘3’ of the letter no. 63
(01 fd;kU;0;u) 2019-20-1296/
elfu’ks/k dated 24.11.2020 which
has influenced the entire
proceeding right from the
beginning, paragraph “3” raises a
presumption of guilt even before
framing of charge, therefore, this
Court has no iota of doubt in
saying that the guilt of the
employee has been assumed and
presumed even before giving him an
opportunity of hearing. Such
presumption of guilt has no
sanction of law and the same is
violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. It is contrary
to the principles of fair play in
action.
42. Before this Court parts with this
order, in view of the discussions
made hereinabove, this court
directs the Director General of
Police, Bihar, Patna (respondent
No. 4) to revisit paragraph 3 of the
letter no. 63 (01 fd;kU;o;u) 2019-
20-1296/e/fu’ks/k dated 24.11.2020
which assumes and pre-judges the
guilt against the Station House
Officer and Chowkidar even before
framing of charge and conduct of
an independent enquiry. This has
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
19/25
no sanction of law. Because of this
stipulation in this case the whole
proceeding right from framing of
charge has been influenced and a
serious prejudice has been caused
to the petitioner.”
22. I further find that the Post Decisional
hearing is one with close mind and it is a
fact that it is detrimental in nature and it
would be a formality in case it is done
with a prejudiced mind with pre-
supposed decision of awarding the
punishment and hence post decisional
hearing would not be as effective.
Furthermore, the basic prospect of
natural justice requires pre decisional
hearing and not post decisional hearing
and the law granting post decisional
hearing has been well settled by the Apex
Court by holding that if the authorities
have taken decision to take action before
initiation of departmental proceeding,
granting post decisional hearing will
only be held to be an empty formality
calling for violation of principle of
natural justice.
27. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the present case and the law laid down
by the Apex Court referred in above
paragraphs, I find that even though the
petitioner was proceeded as per the
provision of C.C.A. Rules, 2005 and
opportunity of hearing was given to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
20/25
petitioner, in view of the
conditions/directions contained in Letter
No. 63 (01 implementation) 2019-20-
1296/Excise Prohibition dated
24.11.2020 of the Director General of
Police, in my opinion, the authorities had
pre-determined to impose penalty on the
petitioner and proceeded to hold quasi
judicial inquiry giving the post-
decisional opportunity of hearing which
does not sub serve the rule of natural
justice and is contrary to the principle of
fair play. The authority who embarks
upon decisional hearing will naturally
proceed with a closed mind and there is
hardly any chance of getting a proper
consideration of the representation at
such a post-decisional opportunity.
Accordingly, I set aside and quash the
suspension order no. 21/2021-142 dated
01.02.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ
petition), charge memo contained in
Memo No. 41 dated 09.02.2021
(Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and the
penalty order contained in Memo no. 233
dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure-1 to the writ
petition) and the subsequent orders, if
any, are also hereby set aside and
quashed.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State
submits that a report was submitted by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (Reserved) Poline Line, Hajipur from
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
21/25
which it is evident that while the petitioner was posted as
S.H.O., Rajapakar Police Station, Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 266
of 2021 was instituted for the offences punishable under
Section 302 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code
and the petitioner received an information on 11.10.2021 that
empty bottles of homeopathic drugs and English liquor have
been thrown in a ditch, just by the side of the metalled road for
which a raid was conducted and incriminating articles were
recovered from the house of one Subham Kumar and for the
said recovery Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 263 of 2021 was
instituted.
15. It has further been submitted by the learned
counsel for the State that due to dereliction of duty on the part
of the petitioner, the blood sample of the deceased of
Rajapakar P.S. Case no. 266 of 2021 was not sent to the FSL
within time, which resulted in possibility of change of nature
of sample. As per direction of the Police Headquarter, the case
of serious nature registered as a first case of the month has to
be investigated by the S.H.O. himself but the petitioner
entrusted the investigation of the case to his junior. Further
even after implementation of the complete ban of liquor from
April, 2016 in the State of Bihar, none information of illegal
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
22/25
activity of consumption and sell of spurious liquor by the
petitioner within his jurisdiction, adversely affected the
working and shows his inefficiency and failure. The petitioner
was asked to submit his show cause and on finding the reply
submitted by the petitioner to be not satisfactory, the
departmental proceeding was initiated against him and after
enquiry and submission of the enquiry report wherein the
investigating officer recommended for action against the
petitioner, the disciplinary authority after giving opportunity to
the petitioner to submit his second show cause reply, issued the
impugned order of punishment. Even the appeal preferred by
the petitioner has also been dismissed by the appellate
authority and the same is a well discussed reasoned order.
16. Learned counsel for the State further submits
that police being the State machinery has been empowered to
ensure the implementation of the law framed by the legislature
and the petitioner being the member of the disciplined force
and holding the responsible post of S.H.O. had the duty to
comply the law in its true letter and spirit within his
jurisdiction and the recovery of huge quantity of incriminating
materials like liquor and due to consumption of spurious
liquor, five persons lost their life which clearly suggest
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
23/25
complete failure on the part of the petitioner and dereliction of
duty.
17. The learned counsel for the State further
submits that it has been admitted by the petitioner in his
second show cause reply that 63 cases were registered by the
petitioner with regard to Excise Act and 4660.800 ml of
country made liquor along with 2292.453 ml foreign liquor,
apart from things things were seized by the petitioner which
shows that he failed to perform his duties properly.
18. From the arguments advanced on behalf of the
parties and after going through the pleadings on record, I find
that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to file his show
cause reply to the memo of charge and the enquiry officer
proceeded with the departmental proceeding wherein the
petitioner is said to have himself appeared without any notice
and the same has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the respondent authorities. From the records it
appears that during course of enquiry, the petitioner did not
choose to cross-examine any of the witnesses and after
thorough enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on
26.03.2022. The disciplinary authority gave opportunity to the
petitioner to submit second show cause reply, but without
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
24/25
considering the same, he proceeded to pass the impugned order
whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment. From
the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, it appears that Co-
ordinate Benches of this Court have considered the fact that the
disciplinary authority proceeded to award punishment with
prejudged mind and even before framing of the charge, the
authorities concerned had found the petitioner guilty. It is not
the case that the petitioner has not done the investigation of
any case improperly, rather the allegation was that in the area
of the petitioner he failed to recover and stop the consumption
of the illegal liquor. By not giving opportunity to the petitioner
to file show cause reply to the memo of charge, the respondent
authorities have violated the principles of natural justice and
further the copy of the enquiry report was also not provided to
him and the same has not been controverted by the learned
State counsel, therefore, based on the above findings, I am of
the considered opinion that the order contained in Memo No.
1833 dated 28.04.2022 and Memo No. 3690 dated 01.10.2022
deserves to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.
19. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary
authority to proceed afresh from the stage of issuance of memo
of charge itself. The entire exercise must be completed within a
Patna High Court CWJC No.3750 of 2023 dt.12-02-2026
25/25
period of six months from the date of production/receipt of a
copy of the order.
20. With the above-mentioned
observations/directions, the present writ petition is allowed.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.02.2026 Transmission Date NA
