Patna High Court
Arunjay Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 27 June, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3880 of 2023
======================================================
Arunjay Kumar Singh Son of ram Bilash Singh R/o Village-Suhi, P.O.-
Malhara, P.S.-Deo, Distirct-Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Welfare Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Joint Secretary, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Additional Secretary, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
7. The Deputy Secretary, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
8. The Deputy Director, Welfare, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur-Cum-
Conducting Officer,
9. TheDistrict Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
10. The District Welfare Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.
11. The District Welfare Officer, Sheohar-Cum-Presenting Officer,
12. The District Manager, State Food Corporation, Rohtas at Sasaram.
13. The Sub Divisional officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.
14. The District Co-operative Officer Rohtas at Sasaram.
15. The District Supply Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.
16. The Senior Deputy Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram.
17. The Circle Officer, Karahgar Circle, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Malini Jaiswal, Advocate
Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate
Ms. Rushali, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.K. Mandal, SC 3
Mr. Arvind Prasad, AC to SC 3
For BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
Patna High Court CWJC No.3880 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
2/9
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-06-2025
In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs :
"(i) To quash the 851 dated15.04.2015
issued by the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram
(Resp. No-9) whereby and where under memo of
charge has been framed against the petitioner and
recommendation has been made to initiate
departmental proceeding against the petitioner. A
copy of letter no-851 dated 15.04.2015 is annexed
as ANNEXURE-1 to this application.
(ii) To quash the order contained in
memo no.-2818 dated 27.10.2016 issued by the Joint
Secretary to the Govt., S.C. & S.T. Welfare
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (Resp.No.-5)
whereby and whereunder a decision has been taken
to initiate departmental proceeding against the
petitioner. A copy of memo 2818 dated 27.10.2016
is annexed as ANNEXURE-2 to this application.
(iii) To quash the enquiry report dated
10.05.2019
contained in letter no.121 dated
10.05.2019 whereby and whereunder the Deputy
Director, Welfare, Tirhut Division Muzaffarpur-cum-
Conducting Officer (Resp. No.-8) has hold the
petitioner guilty of charge no.3 in the departmental
proceeding. A copy of enquiry report dated
10.05.2019 contained in letter no-121 dated
10.05.2019 is annexed as ANNEXURE-3 to this
application.
(iv) To quash the memo no.-1536 dated
06.10.2020 issued by the Joint Secretary to the
Govt., S.C. & S.T. Welfare Department, Govt. of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3880 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
3/9
Bihar, Patna (Resp.No.-5) whereby and whereunder
second show cause notice has been issued to the
petitioner. A copy of memo no.-1536 dated
06.10.2020 is annexed as ANNEXURE-4 to this
application.
(v) To quash the memo no.589 dated
22.02.2022 issued by the Additional Secretary to the
Govt., S.C. & S.T. Welfare Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna (Resp.No.-6) whereby and whereunder
successive second show cause notice has been
issued to the petitioner. A copy of memo no.-589
dated 22.02.2022 is annexed as ANNEXURE-5 to
this application.
(vi) To quash the order contained in
memo no.110 dated 08.04.2022 issued by The Joint
Secretary, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe
Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (Resp.
No.-5) whereby and whereunder petitioner has been
dismissed from the post of Block Welfare Officer,
Block-Masaudhi, Patna. A copy of memo no.-110
dated 08.04.2022 is annexed as ANNEXURE-6 to
this application.
(vii) To quash the appellate order
contained in memo no.-2869 dated 16.09.2022
issued under the signature of Respondent no.5
whereby and whereunder it has been communicated
to the petitioner that appeal preferred against the
order of dismissal dated 08.04.2022 (Ann-6) has
been rejected on the ground that the appeal is time
barred. A copy of memo no.-2869 dated 16.09.2022
is annexed as ANNEXURE-7 to this application.
And further after quashing of the above
said impugned orders, petitioner may be reinstated
in service will all consequential and monetary
benefits.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3880 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
4/9
And/or
Pass such other order(s) as Your
Lordships may deem fit and proper.”
2. The petitioner was appointed as Block Agriculture
Officer. While working as an Officer he was subjected to
disciplinary proceedings for alleged shortage of wheat of 6930
quintal. The Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from the
alleged charge. On receipt of such Inquiry Officer’s report,
disciplinary authority vide its communication dated 31.07.2018
remanded the matter to the Inquiry Officer. It is necessary to
reproduce communication dated 31.07.2018 which reads as
under :
“fcgkj ljdkj
vu0 tkfr ,oa vuq0 tutkfr dY;k.k foHkkx
la0la0&3th@¼vkjksi½&vtk0 vttk0¼vjkt0½&8@15&1827
izs’kd]
eks0 eatwj vyh ¼Hkk0iz0ls0½]
ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA
lsok esa]
mi funs”kd dY;k.k]
frjgqr izeaMy] eqtQ~Qjiqj
&lg&
lapkyu inkf/kdkjhA
iVuk] fnukad& 31@07@18
fo’k;%& Jh v:.kat; dqekj flag] rRdkyhu iz[kaM dY;k.k inkf/kdkjh]
djxgj] jksgrkl lEizfr iz[kaM dY;k.k inkf/kdkjh] ftyk dY;k.k
dk;kZy;] f”kogj ds fo:) lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa vkjksi dh xgu
tkap dj lqLi’V tkap izfrosnu miyC/k djkus ds laca/k esaA
Patna High Court CWJC No.3880 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
5/9izlax%& vkidk i=kad 463 fnukad&19-06-18A
egk”k;]
funs”kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo’k;d izklafxd i= ds laca/k esa dguk gS
fd Jh v:.kat; dqekj flag] rRdkyhu iz[kaM dY;k.k inkf/kdkjh] djxgj]
jksgrkl lEizfr iz[kaM dY;k.k inkf/kdkjh] ftyk dY;k.k dk;kZy;] f”kogj
ds fo:) lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa miyC/k djk;k x;k tkap
izfrosnu vLi’V gSA
vr% mDr tkap izfrosnu dks ewy :i esa izsf’kr djrs gq, vuqjks/k
gS fd Jh flag ds fo:) lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa vkjksi dh xgu
tkap dj lqLi’V tkap izfrosnu foHkkx dks “kh?kz miyC/k djkus dk d’V
djsaA
vuq0&;FkksDrA fo”oklHkktu
g0@&
¼eks0 eatwj vyh½
ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA”
The disciplinary authority, if he is distinguishing with
the Inquiry Officer’s report on any of the charges, he is bounden
duty to assign the reasons in what manner the inquiry officer has
exonerated and he should not have exonerated in respect of
particular charge or charges so as to commence from the defective
stage by the inquiry officer. Reading of the remand dated
31.07.2018 cited supra, it is crystal clear that there is no specific
and pin pointing that the inquiry officer’s report is defective to the
extent of certain material information has not been taken into
consideration or evidence has not been taken note of while
exonerating the petitioner. On this count, petitioner has made out a
case to as to interfere with the impugned action of the respondents
Patna High Court CWJC No.3880 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
6/9
insofar as imposition of penalty and its rejection in appeal and
they are set aside. Matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority
to proceed afresh with reference to receipt of inquiry officer’s
report while exonerating the petitioner and complete the inquiry
strictly in accordance with Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
3. The petitioner shall be reinstated within a period of
two months or he shall be kept under suspension. In this regard,
disciplinary authority is hereby directed to take specific decision
while assigning reasons in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL vs. B.
Karunakar reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 read with Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited. Vs. Ananta Saha
and others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142, Para 48 to 50, it is held
as under:
“48. In ECIL v. B. Karunakar
[(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 :
(1993) 25 ATC 704 : AIR 1994 SC 1074] and
Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC 30
: (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 126 : AIR 2009 SC 161] ,
this Court held that where the punishment
awarded by the disciplinary authority is
quashed by the court/tribunal on some
technical ground, the authority must be given
Patna High Court CWJC No.3880 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
7/9an opportunity to conduct the enquiry afresh
from the stage where it stood before the alleged
vulnerability surfaced. However, for the
purpose of holding fresh enquiry, the delinquent
is to be reinstated and may be put under
suspension. The question of back wages, etc. is
determined by the disciplinary authority in
accordance with law after the fresh enquiry is
concluded.
49. The issue of entitlement of back
wages has been considered by this Court time
and again and consistently held that even after
punishment imposed upon the employee is
quashed by the court or tribunal, the payment
of back wages still remains discretionary.
Power to grant back wages is to be exercised by
the court/tribunal keeping in view the facts in
their entirety as no straitjacket formula can be
evolved, nor a rule of universal application can
be laid for such cases. Even if the delinquent is
reinstated, it would not automatically make him
entitled to back wages as entitlement to get
back wages is independent of reinstatement.
The factual scenario and the principles of
justice, equity and good conscience have to be
kept in view by an appropriate authority/court
or tribunal. In such matters, the approach of
the court or the tribunal should not be rigid or
mechanical but flexible and realistic. (Vide U.P.
SRTC v. Mitthu Singh [(2006) 7 SCC 180 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 1590 : AIR 2006 SC 3018] ,
Akola Taluka Education Society v. Shivaji
Patna High Court CWJC No.3880 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
8/9[(2007) 9 SCC 564 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 679]
and Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Ltd. v.
Kashinath Ganapati Kambale [(2009) 2 SCC
288 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 372].
50. In view of the above, the relief
sought by the delinquent that the appellants be
directed to pay the arrears of back wages from
the date of first termination order till date,
cannot be entertained and is hereby rejected. In
case the appellants choose to hold a fresh
enquiry, they are bound to reinstate the
delinquent and, in case, he is put under
suspension, he shall be entitled to subsistence
allowance till the conclusion of the enquiry. All
other entitlements would be determined by the
disciplinary authority as explained hereinabove
after the conclusion of the enquiry. With these
observations, the appeal stands disposed of. No
costs.”
4. In the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others vs. Prabhat Kumar (reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 736
the aforementioned principles has been reiterated. These decisions
shall be taken note of in respect of reinstatement / suspension and
how to proceed with the inquiry from the defective stage. On these
counts, petitioner has made out a case. Hence, impugned decisions
dated, 15.04.2015 (Annexure-1), 27.10.2016 (Annexure-2),
10.05.2019 (Annexure-3), 06.10.2020 (Annexure-4), 22.02.2022
(Annexure – 5), 08.04.2022 (Annexure – 6), 16.09.2022
Patna High Court CWJC No.3880 of 2023 dt.27-06-2025
9/9
(Annexure – 7) stand set aside. Accordingly, present writ petition
is allowed in part.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 02.07.2025 Transmission Date