Patna High Court
Umesh Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Bihar on 28 April, 2026
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19711 of 2019
======================================================
Umesh Kumar Sinha Son of late Ram Kripal Rajak, Resident of Village-
Chakalma, P.S. Masaurhi, District- Patna, At Present Resident of Beside
Lakhan Enclave Saubhagya Sharma Path, Rukanpura, P.S. Rupaspur, District-
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
3. Additional Chief Secretary Cum Principal Secretary, Department of Home,
Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
4. Director Genral of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
5. Additional Director General of Police (C.I.D.), Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
6. Special Secretary Cum I.G. Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
7. Joint Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna.
8. Deputy Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
9. Under Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
10. Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.
11. Treasury Officer, Nirmaan Bhawan, Patna, Bihar.
12. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, West Gandhi Maidan,
Near Biscoman Tower, Patna - 1.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Pratap Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, G.P.4
Mr. Manoj Kumar, A.C. to G.P.4
For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the S.B.I. : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate
For the A.G. : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
2/17
Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 28-04-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief(s) :-
"1. That this application for issuance of
appropriate writ / writs in the nature of certiorari
for quashing of the resolution dated 24-04-2019
issued vide File No-3/Nya.-80-10/2017, Grih.
Aarakshi-3334 by which 20% of the pension for five
years is directed to be deducted under section 43
(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules and its
consequential follow up action, is directed in the
following facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he started
working in the capacity of Director of the Forensic Science
Laboratory at Patna from 31.1.2003.
4. The petitioner was served with the memo of
charge contained in Prapatra-ka on 14.6.2017, according to
which the charge was to the effect that blood sample in
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
3/17
connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case no. 147 of 2016
dated 9.5.2016 was sent to the F.S.L for tests. The first blood
sample was tested on 10.5.2016, however in completing the
tests of seven blood samples, instead of seven days, the report
was sent to the Court after 42 days without giving any
information to the Senior Superintendent of Police. This delay
was committed inspite of the personal request of the
Additional Director General of Police (Crime Investigation
Department) in view of the sensitivity of the case. Once again
information was not given to the A.D.G (C.I.D) about the
report of the blood samples coming as negative and the
exhibits were not returned to the Investigating Officer. It was
stated that the reports were submitted and the directions of the
higher authorities were violated with ill-intention.
5. The second charge was to the effect that in the
matter of appointments of Senior Assistant Scientists in the
F.S.L, in the list of institutions recognized by the U.G.C, the
names of Amity University, U.P and SHIATS, Allahabad were
not sent thus vitiating the selection process.
6. The petitioner submitted his reply to the memo of
charges.
7. In the meantime, the petitioner having
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
4/17
superannuated on 31.1.2018, vide memo no.1856 dated
6.3.2018
, the departmental proceeding was converted into a
proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.
8. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated
3.7.2018 finding the charges levelled against the petitioner to
have been proved.
9. The petitioner was served with a copy of the
enquiry report on 9.7.2018 and asked to file his response
thereto within a period of 15 days. The petitioner filed his
reply on 23.7.2018.
10. The respondents came out with an order
contained in memo no.3334 dated 24.4.2019 issued under the
signature of the Joint Secretary, Home Department (Police
Branch) imposing punishment under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar
Pension Rules to the effect of deduction of 20% of pension for
a period of 5 years. The order of punishment further stated
that it had the approval of the Bihar Public Service
Commission (B.P.S.C).
11. It is against this order of punishment dated
24.4.2019 that the petitioner has preferred the instant
application.
12. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
5/17
the petitioner that the order of punishment is not sustainable
for the reason that the respondent authorities failed to take
into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner to the
memo of charge. Had the respondents properly considered the
petitioner’s response, they would not have come to the
conclusion that the action of the petitioner amounted to him
being guilty of grave misconduct or could have caused
pecuniary loss to the Government by his misconduct or
negligence. No pecuniary loss having been caused to the
Government, the order was unsustainable and thus be set
aside.
13. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. It was submitted that the work
done by the Director, F.S.L was scrutinized and it was found
by the A.D.G of C.I.D that there was laxity and delay in
carrying out the tests of blood sample in connection with
Gandhi Maidan P.S Case no. 147 of 2016. Further defective
list of institutions recognized by the U.G.C was submitted to
the Staff Selection Commission, Bihar. It was further
submitted that the matter was examined by the respondents,
the proposal received from the C.I.D, Bihar was reviewed by
the Home Department and an explanation was called for from
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
6/17
the petitioner. Taking the contents of his explanation, it was
decided to initiate a departmental proceeding under the C.C.A
rules. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar further submitted
that after conducting the enquiry in a proper manner, the
Conducting Officer submitted his enquiry report. Enclosing a
copy of the same, a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner to which he submitted his reply on 23.7.2018. In the
meantime, the petitioner having superannuated, the
proceedings had been converted into one under Rule 43(b) of
the Bihar Pension Rules. Having gone through the reply
submitted by the petitioner to the second show cause notice
and having perused the material available on record, the State
Government awarded the punishment of deduction of 20%
pension for 5 years which is impugned in the instant
application. It was further submitted that there has been no
procedural irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings nor
has the petitioner made out any case for judicial review of the
order impugned. There being no merit in the writ application,
the same be dismissed.
14. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
15. The relevant facts in brief are that while the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
7/17
petitioner was working in the capacity of the Director of the
F.S.L at Patna, he was served with a show cause notice dated
31.1.2017 to which he filed his reply. Not finding the
petitioner’s reply to be satisfactory, a decision was taken to
proceed against the petitioner in a departmental proceeding
under the C.C.A Rules and the petitioner was served with a
memo of charge contained in Prapatra-ka on 14.6.2017.
16. The charge against the petitioner was that he had
caused delay of 42 days in submitting the test reports of the
blood sample in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case no.
147 of 2016. The second charge was that in the list of
recognized institutions called for by the Bihar Staff Selection
Commission, the list provided by the petitioner did not
include Amity University, U.P nor SHIATS Allahabad which
thus vitiated the selection process.
17. The petitioner submitted his reply to the memo
of charges stating therein that large number of samples/files
are pending for tests. Further the quantity of blood sample
being less in the seven phial, nothing remained after the tests
were over and thus information was given to the Officer In-
charge of the Gandhi Maidan Police Station by memo dated
9.8.2016. With respect to not giving timely information to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
8/17
police authorities, the petitioner stated that as per the clerk,
hundreds of files still remain for communication through FAX
and thus test reports were sent only when the Investigating
Officer asked for the same in writing.
18. In response to not giving a proper list with
respect to institutions having recognition of U.G.C to the
Bihar Staff Selection Commission, the petitioner stated that
the list sent by him was the one downloaded from the website.
No separate list of U.G.C recognized institutions is available
in the F.S.L.
19. The Conducting Officer taking into
consideration the evidence on record including the deposition
of Shri. Sanjay Kumar, S.P (D), C.I.D, Bihar as also large
number of documents/official communications proved by him
came to the conclusion that both the charges levelled against
the petitioner had been proved.
20. It may be observed here that the enquiry report
in clause-10 mentions about the witness Sanjay Kumar having
been cross-examined by the petitioner on 4.5.2018.
21. Having gone through the materials available in
course of enquiry, the oral as also the documentary evidence
brought on record and proved by the witness, the Conducting
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
9/17
Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 3.7.2018 finding
the charges of 42 days delay in submitting the test reports of
the blood sample and not providing the names of the
institutions of Amity University, U.P and SHIATS, Allahabad
in the list of institutions recognized by the U.G.C thus
vitiating the appointment process, to have been proved and the
petitioner to be responsible for the same.
22. The petitioner was served with a second show
cause notice on 9.7.2018 enclosing a copy of the enquiry
report and asking the petitioner to respond thereto. The
petitioner filed his reply on 23.7.2018 reiterating the stand
taken by him in course of enquiry while submitting his reply
to the memo of charge.
23. Taking into account the petitioner’s reply, the
respondents came out with the order of punishment contained
in resolution dated 24.4.2019 imposing the punishment under
Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules of deduction of 20%
pension of the petitioner for the period of 5 years.
24. With respect to the scope of judicial review by a
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the case of
Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran; (2015) 2
SCC 610, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
10/17“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;
(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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
11/17material 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.
(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.
15. In State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata
Rao, the principles have been further discussed at
paras 21-24, which read as follows: (SCC pp.561-63)
…………………………………………………..
“23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of
certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory
jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as an
appellate court. The findings of fact reached by
an inferior court or tribunal as a result of the
appreciation of evidence are not reopened or
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
12/17questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law
which is apparent on the face of the record can
be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact,
however grave it may appear to be. In regard to
a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ
can be issued if it is shown that in recording the
said finding, the tribunal had erroneously
refused to admit admissible and material
evidence, or had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which has influenced the
impugned finding. Again if a finding of fact is
based on no evidence, that would be regarded
as an error of law which can be corrected by a
writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by
the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the
ground that the relevant and material evidence
adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or
inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy
or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the
inference of fact to be drawn from the said
finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Tribunal. (See Syed Yakoob v. K.S.
Radhakrishnan.)”
…………………………………………………
25. In the case of Deputy General Manager
(Appellate Authority) and Others vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava;
(2021) 2 SCC 612, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as
follows :-
“22. The power of judicial review in the
matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
13/17departmental/appellate authorities discharged by
constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32
or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is
circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or
procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or
violation of principles of natural justice and it is not
akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an
appellate authority which has been earlier examined
by this Court in the State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan
and later in State of T.N. v. A. Rajapandian and
further examined by the three-Judge Bench of this
Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India wherein it
has been held as under: (B.C. Chaturvedi case, SCC
pp. 759-60, para 13)
“13. The disciplinary authority is
the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is
presented, the appellate authority has
coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence
or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary
enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and
findings on that evidence are not relevant.
Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence
cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the
court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel
this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para
20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of
the evidence reached by the disciplinary
authority, is perverse or suffers from patent
error on the face of the record or based on no
evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be
issued.”
23. It has been consistently followed in
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
14/17
the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh
Dahiya and recently by the three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India.
24. It is thus settled that the power of
judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an
evaluation of the decision-making process and not the
merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in
treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings
held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner,
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in
violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of
enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by
the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If
the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable
person would have ever reached or where the
conclusions upon consideration of the evidence
reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or
suffer from patent error on the face of record or based
on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be
issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot
be extended to the examination of correctness or
reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter
of fact.
25. When the disciplinary enquiry is
conducted for the alleged misconduct against the
public servant, the court is to examine and determine:
(i) whether the enquiry was held by the
competent authority;
(ii) whether rules of natural justice are
complied with;
(iii) whether the findings or conclusions
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
15/17are based on some evidence and authority has power
and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
27. It is true that strict rules of evidence
are not applicable to departmental enquiry
proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is
that the allegation against the delinquent must be
established by such evidence acting upon which a
reasonable person acting reasonably and with
objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the
gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee.
It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot
sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental
enquiry proceedings.
28. The constitutional court while
exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under
Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would
not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the
departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of
mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence
to support a finding or where a finding is such that no
man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have
arrived at those findings and so long as there is some
evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the
departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
26. Further, in the case of Airports Authority of
India vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee; (2025) 4 SCC 111, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :-
“34. The Division Bench in the
impugned judgment, further observed that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
16/17disciplinary authority and the appellate authority
did not consider the representation of the
respondent and acted without application of mind
while imposing the penalty of dismissal from service
against the respondent. On a perusal of the orders
passed by the disciplinary authority and the
appellate authority, we find that the representation
submitted by the respondent has been duly adverted
to and objectively considered by both the authorities
and the same were found to be devoid of substance.
35. It is trite law that in disciplinary
proceedings, it is not necessary for the disciplinary
authority to deal with each and every ground raised
by the delinquent officer in the representation
against the proposed penalty and detailed reasons
are not required to be recorded in the order
imposing punishment if he accepts the findings
recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Our view stands
fortified by the decision of this Court in Boloram
Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank, wherein it was
held: (SCC p. 810, para 11)
“11. Further, it is well settled that if the
disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded
by the enquiry officer and passes an order, no
detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the
order imposing punishment. The punishment is
imposed based on the findings recorded in the
enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate
reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary
authority.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Patna High Court CWJC No.19711 of 2019 dt.28-04-2026
17/17
27. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, the material on record and
especially the contents of the enquiry report together with the
scope of judicial review as held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the judgments referred to herein above, in the opinion
of the Court, the petitioner has not made out any case for
interference in the order impugned in the instant application.
28. The application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 09.02.2026 Uploading Date 28.04.2026 Transmission Date