Patna High Court
Mahendra Prasad vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 21 July, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.164 of 2019
======================================================
Mahendra Prasad S/o Shri Kapildeo Sharma, R/o Mohalla- Maurya Vihar,
P.O.- Khagaul, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through its Chief secretary
2. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Old Secretariat Building, Patna
4. The In Charge Chairman, Bihar Bhudan Yagya Committee, Patna cum
Chairman, Revenue Board, Government of Bihar, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Old Secretariat Building, Patna.
5. The Bihar Bhudan Yagnya Committee, Officers Flat No. 10/11/12, 84 Set,
Punaichak, Patna- 800023, through its In charge Chairman-cum Chairman,
Revenue Board, Government of Bihar, Department of Revenue and Land
Reforms, Old Secretariat Building, Patna.
6. The then Previous Chairman, Bihar Bhudan Yagnya Committee, Shri
Shubhmurti, Officers Flat No. 10/11/12, 84 Set. Punaichak, Patna-800023
7. Shri Kedar Nath Dutt, Office Secretary (Karyalay Mantri), Bihar Bhudan
Yagnya Committee, Head Office-Road No. 34, Quarter No. 2/A,
Gardanibagh, P.S. Gardanibagh, District-Patna 800002
8. Shri Mohammad Ishrafil, office Secretary (Karyalay Mantri), Bihar Bhudan
Yagnya Committee, Head Office-Road No. 34, Quarter No. 2/A,
Gardanibagh, P.S. Gardanibagh, District-Patna 800002
9. Shri Phool Kumar Singh, Office Assistant (Karyalay Sahayak) Bihar
Bhudan Yagnya Committee, Head Office-Road No. 34, Quarter No. 2/A,
Gardanibagh, P.S. Gardanibagh, District-Patna 800002
10. Shri Rameshwar Prasad Verma, Head Inspector (Pradhan Nirikshak-working
even after 15 years of retirement) Bihar Bhudan Yagnya Committee, Head
Office-Road No. 34, Quarter No. 2/A, Gardanibagh, P.S. Gardanibagh,
District-Patna 800002
11. Shri Krishna Kumar Singh, Office Secretary, District- Bhudan Office,
Gopalganj, P.S.- Gopalganj, District-Gopalganj
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Ballabha Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, AC to AAG 12
For the Res. Nos. 7 to 11: Mr. Rajnikanth Singh, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
2/20
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 21-07-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as
contained in Letter No. 25/017-940 dated 28.02.2018 passed
by the then Chairman, Bhoodan Yagna Committee, Patna,
whereby he has been inflicted with the punishment of
dismissal from service. The petitioner also seeks quashing of
the order as contained in Letter No. 10 Kha/014-841 dated
28.11.2014
issued by the then Chairman, Bhoodan Yagna
Committee, whereby the petitioner was placed under
suspension with effect from 27.11.2014 and directed him to
hand over the charge of his office to one Shri Ram Narayan
Lal Karn, Office Secretary, Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee.
3. The materials available on record highlighted the
history and establishment of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna
Committee, which is a creation of the State established under
the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954. The very object of the
Act, 1954 was to facilitate the donation of lands in connection
with the Bhoodan Yagna initiated by Shri Acharya Vinoba
Bhave and to provide for the settlement of such lands with
landless persons or with a village community, Gram
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
3/20
Panchayat, or with a Co-operative Society organised by the
Bhoodan Yagna Committee. Bhoodan Yagna initiated by Shri
Acharya Vinoba Bhave was meant to provide for the
settlement of such lands with landless persons or with a
village community, Gram Panchayat or with a Co-operative
Society organised by the Bhoodan Yagna Committee. The
Chairman of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee is to be
appointed by the Cabinet of the Government of Bihar and he
is the highest authority under the Bhoodan Yagna Committee
and his order is said to be final and there is no provision of
appeal. Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee established by the
State Government has been declared to be a body corporate
and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal with
power to acquire, hold and dispose of property; both movable
and immovable, and shall by the said name, sue and be sued.
4. In the aforesaid premise, the Committee falls
under the definition of the State as defined under Article 12
of the Constitution of India. Section 24 of the Bihar Bhoodan
Yagna Act, 1954, the power is vested with the Committee to
make regulation for the matters mentioned therein, including
the matters for appointment of officers and staff of the
Committee. In exercise of such power a Regulation was also
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
4/20
framed and approved in the meeting of Bhoodan Yagna
Committee in 17th May, 1960.
5. The petitioner at the relevant time, in the year
2014, holding the post of Office Secretary (Karyalay Mantri)
was directed to submit the original Gift Deeds (dan patra),
Original Certificates and Confirmation Register in relation to
Bhojpur district Bhoodan land before the head office of the
Bihar Boodan Yagna Committee for its digitization. On
receipt of the communication, as contained in Annexure-2 to
the writ petition, the petitioner made a request to authorise any
person to receive the required documents. In pursuant thereto,
one Yugal Kishore Verma was authorised; since the list of the
documents were not prepared the required documents could
not be handed over to the authorised persons leading to
issuance of letter dated 06.08.2014 by the Chairman of the
Committee with a clear instruction to get the list of the
documents duly prepared and hand over to the authorised
persons. Finally, all the required documents, as was directed
by the Chairman, was handed over to the authorised persons
and they took away all such required documents.
6. In course of handing over of the documents since
the authrorised person noted in the file that they were taking
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
5/20
charge to the aforesaid documents, the same was objected by
the petitioner to the extent of using the term of ‘taking
charge’. This incidence led to issuance of show cause notice
dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure-8) directing the petitioner to file
his explanation as to on what basis the petitioner has
apprehended wrongful use of documents at the level of the
Chairman. It is made clear that if the explanation of the
petitioner shall not be found satisfactory, disciplinary
proceeding may be initiated against him. In response thereto,
the petitioner immediately responded on 17.09.2014 and
requested to grant sufficient time for submitting the detailed
show cause. Subsequently a detailed show cause was
submitted on 26.11.2014, copy of which is marked as
Annexure-9/A. The petitioner in his reply explained the
pitiable condition of the Bhoodan’s employees and sorry state
of affairs prevailing in the Committee, apart from the financial
constraint, suppression and oppression of dedicated and
honest employee including the petitioner.
7. On 07.11.2014 vide letter No. 10 kha/014-814
issued a further show cause notice on the alleged ground of
indiscipline and charge of inviting one Jagdish Sharma,
former Office Secretary, District Bhoodan Office, Bhojpur for
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
6/20
putting signature on the left over counterfoil office copies of
certificates and thereby made tampering with the certificates
without the order of the Chairman. The afore noted show
cause was also responded by the petitioner by explaining the
entire position, however the same did not satisfy the Chairman
of the Committee and the petitioner was placed under
suspension vide impugned letter No. 10 kha/014-814 dated
28.11.2014 with effect from 27.11.2014. The head office of
the petitioner had been fixed at Central Office Bhoodan office,
Patna.
8. It is the contention of the petitioner that the
impugned order of suspension narrates that the explanation of
the petitioner was found unsatisfactory which led to issuance
of such order but it has never been clarified and assigned any
reason as to why the explanation of the petitioner was not
accepted. On being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this
Court by filing CWJC No. 225 of 2015 challenging his order
of suspension raising various grounds, including the ground of
malafide and extraneous consideration, as also on account of
voice being raised against the illegality committed by the
authorities, especially the then Chairman of the Committee.
While the writ petition was pending consideration, in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
7/20
meanwhile, the petitioner was served with the charge memo
dated 24.02.2015. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply
which was duly considered by the Enquiry Officer and finally
the enquiry report was submitted on 02.06.2015. A second
show cause notice was served on the petitioner, which was
also duly responded by the petitioner by writing various
points. The disciplinary authority thereafter passed the order
of dismissal on 30.06.2015 which was also made the subject
matter of challenge in the afore noted writ petition.
9. The Court while examining the correctness of the
impugned order of dismissal on being found that the same
suffers from manifest illegality, bereft of any reason,
inasmuch as, the order passed by the disciplinary authority is a
cryptic and two lines order, set aside the same and relegated
the proceeding to the stage of issuance of second show cause.
The Court further directed that the disciplinary authority, after
considering the petitioner’s explanation to the second show
cause, would pass fresh reasoned order, in accordance with
law. Till passing of the final order, the petitioner shall be
deemed to be under suspension. The matter came up for
consideration again before the Chairman Yagna Committee
and again show cause explanation of the petitioner came to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
8/20
rejected and earlier order of dismissal came to be affirmed.
10. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Krishna
Ballabha Sharma referring to the various annexures has
submitted that the respondent no. 6 had been indulged in
corruption and corrupt practices contrary to the noble ideals
and high principles of Acharya Vinoba Bhave and he was
also found personally responsible of official irregularities;
several complaints were made with multifarious allegations,
including the allegation of providing benefits to the land
mafias through the private NGO “Samuday” being run and
managed by the then Chairman himself, the petitioner has all
along been raising noise against irregularities. The entire
action of the respondent right from very inception, imposition
of dismissal is said to be actuated with utter vendetta and
malafide, keeping the petitioner under suspension without
there being any cogent reason and providing no subsistence
allowance is itself a proof of malafide and prejudice mind.
11. To support the aforesaid contention, reference
has also been made to Annexures 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D to
demonstrates that the public grievance authority found fault
with the conduct of the then Chairman. Referring to the order
passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in CWJC
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
9/20
No. 225 of 2015, it is vehemently contended that once the
order of dismissal came to be set aside and the matter has
been relegated to the respondent no. 6 afresh for consideration
of show cause explanation submitted by the petitioner, the
rejection of the show cause and affirming the earlier order of
dismissal is completely in defiance of the order of this Court
and a contemptuous one. Once the earlier order of dismissal
lost its efficacy and existence pursuant to the order of this
Court, it cannot be revived by the authorities. Taking this
Court through the impugned order dated 28.02.2018 as
contained in Annexure-24 to the writ petition, it is further
contended that an empty formality has been done and save
and except the denial of the ground taken by the petitioner,
there is no discussion as to why it has not been accepted. It is
lastly contended that the impugned order of dismissal is
wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Chairman alone
is not the competent authority, the order of dismissal ought to
be passed either by the Committee or by the Minister (Mantri)
as nominated by the Committee, who shall be authorised to
regulate the proceeding in relation to appointment,
disciplinary proceeding and dismissal of the employee.
12. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
10/20
Advocate for the State submitted that since the Committee has
already been dissolved, therefore presently it is not being
represented by any of the lawyer engaged by the Committee.
However, a counter affidavit came to be filed on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 4 to 9, apart from the respondent authorities
of the State Government. Referring to the averments made in
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4
to 9, it is contended that the very departmental proceeding was
initiated against the petitioner due to his misconduct and
indiscipline which came to be proved leading to passing of the
dismissal order. The entire thrust of the petitioner is to
picturise the tainted conduct of the then Chairman of the
Committee. However, this has nothing to do with the order
under challenge. The petitioner defied and violated the
direction of the respondent no. 6, and thereby caused grave
indiscipline. Besides, the grave indiscipline, the petitioner has
made baseless allegation against the then Chairman and his
wife of running unauthorized NGO. It has also been submitted
that in the earlier round of litigation, the order of suspension
did not interfere and the learned Court was pleased to set aside
only the earlier dismissal order and directed the disciplinary
authority to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
11/20
his reply to the second show cause.
13. In pursuant to the order of this Court passed in
CWJC No. 225 of 2015, the impugned order came to be
passed after giving proper consideration to the reply of the
petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to establish that
there is any procedural lapses in arriving the order under
challenge and it is not the case of the petitioner that the
principles of natural justice has been violated or the statutory
regulation has not been adhered to in passing the impugned
order.
14. A supplementary counter affidavit also came to
be filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 and it is apprised that on
account of dissolution of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee the
consequent transfer of its duties, power and function to the
Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, thus the respondent Nos. 4
and 5 are duly vested with the authority to take a decision
regarding governance of the service of the petitioner including
the termination or disciplinary action against the petitioner in
accordance with law. So far the payment of admissible
honorarium to the employees working in the Committee, it
has been made clear that the same rests upon the policy
decision. Referring to paragraph no. 10 of the supplementary
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
12/20
counter affidavit, it is submitted that certain amount
mentioned therein has been approved with a condition that
the honorarium shall be paid to those who have been
appointed in proper manner and rather actually
disposing/doing the works of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee.
A detailed list of the employees working with the Bhoodan
Yagna Committee have been sought from the Revenue Board.
15. Having heard the learned Advocates for the
respective parties and after going through the materials
available on record, it is made clear that this Court is only
concerned with the legality of the impugned order as
challenged in the present writ petition. It is not in dispute that
the matter which led to initiation of disciplinary proceeding
preceded with the suspension order was initiated on account
of the alleged disobedience of handing over of required
documents at the level of the petitioner. It is also not disputed
that the certain query has been made at the level of the
petitioner with unnecessary remarks against the
maladministration and malfunctioning of the Bihar Bhoodan
Yagna Committee which caused indignity and disrespect to
the then Chairman. However, this is the fact that all the
documents which were quite voluminous were finally handed
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
13/20
over to the authorised persons of the Committee and the work
of the Committee was never hampered. The petitioner at the
relevant time working as Office Secretary (Karyalay Mantri)
was subjected to show cause notice which was duly replied,
though it did not find favour resulting into his suspension.
16. The copy of the “Regulation” which has been
placed on record as Annexure-C series to the counter affidavit
filed by the respondent No. 3, and has been referred to,
postulates that to regulate the proper functioning of the
Committee, the Committee is authorized to nominate any
member as Mantri who shall discharge their duty till the
tenure of the Committee. It is the Mantri who shall regulate
functioning of the officers and employees including the
matters related to appointment, leave, termination and
disciplinary action. There is no confrontation to the statutory
prescription as provided under Bihar Bhoodan Yagna
Committee Act, 1954 that the Committee shall consist of
Chairman and such number of members which shall not be
less than 4 and more than 9, as the State Government may
determine. The Chairman and the members of the Committee
shall be appointed by the State Government. The term of the
office of the Chairman and the members of the Committee
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
14/20
shall be prescribed for four years from the date of publication
of their names in the official gazette and shall include any
further period which may elapse between expiration of the
said period of four years and the date of the publication in the
official gazette of the names of the Chairman and the
members of the next succeeding Committee.
17. From reading of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act,
1954 as also the Rules 1955 and the Regulation which was
duly approved by the Bhoodan Yagna Committee in the year
1960, left no confusion that the Chairman is to be nominated
by the State, who shall preside over the meeting and call for
the special meeting whenever he thinks fit. Power of
appointment and regulating the disciplinary action and
dismissal of an employee was vested with the Committee
constituted under “Bhoodan Yagna Committee Act, 1954” or
the Mantri nominated by the members of the Committee.
Even if it is assumed that the Chairman, being the disciplinary
authority had power to initiate disciplinary proceeding against
the officers and employee but in all circumstances either it
must have the sanction/approval of the Committee or in case
there is no specific procedures prescribed for regulating
disciplinary proceeding, it must be regulated under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
15/20
disciplinary rules at par with the government employees.
Thus, in that situation, the rules which have been framed
under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 2005 that cannot be given a complete go
by, at least, in principle.
18. The contention of the respondent that since in
the earlier round of litigation, only the impugned order of
dismissal came to be set aside and the matter was relegated,
hence the petitioner is precluded to challenge the initiation of
the departmental proceeding, including suspension order and
the infirmities, which have been crept before passing of the
impugned order, in the opinion of this Court, is also not
tenable. Since the legality of the order of suspension and the
enquiry report has not been adjudicated and the Court prima
facie on being satisfied that the impugned order is wholly non
speaking and cryptic, set aside the order, it cannot deprive the
delinquent to challenge the very initiation of the disciplinary
proceeding in the subsequent round of litigation, if the
subsequent order is per se illegal and the disciplinary
authority has come out with the same order of punishment.
19. The materials available on record clearly suggest
that not even a single mandatory prescription has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
16/20
followed in initiating the disciplinary proceeding or inflicting
the punishment. There is neither a charge memo disclosing
distinct imputation nor the list of documents by whom charges
are proposed to be sustained. There is neither any appointment
of the Presenting Officer who brought the evidences before
the Enqury Officer to prove the charges nor the consideration
of the defence statement of the petitioner by the Conducting
Officer. It also does not appear to this Court as to whether the
second show cause notice was served with the enquiry report,
which also vitiates the subsequent disciplinary proceeding on
account of complete violation of the principles of natural
justice.
20. The Court time and again reinforced the strict
observance of principle of fair play in action, in departmental
proceeding, before taking action entailing adverse penal
consequences such as loss of livelihood. It would be worth
benefiting here to quote relevant paragraphs of the decision
rendered by the Apex Court in Sawai Singh vs State Of
Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454]:
“16. It has been observed by this Court in Surath
Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal that
charges involving consequences of termination of
service must be specific, though a departmental
enquiry is not like a criminal trial as was noted
by this Court in the case of State of A.P. v. S. Sree
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
17/20Rama Rao and as such there is no such rule that
an offence is not established unless it is proved
beyond doubt. But in a departmental enquiry
entailing consequences like loss of job which
now-a-days means loss of livelihood, there must
be fair play in action, in respect of an order
involving adverse or penal consequences against
an employee, there must be investigations to the
charges consistent with the requirement of the
situation in accordance with the principles of
natural justice in so far as these are applicable in
a particular situation.
17. The application of those principles of natural
justice must always be in conformity with the
scheme of the Act and the subject-matter of the
case. It is not possible to lay down any rigid rules
as to which principle of natural justice is to be
applied. There is no such thing as technical
natural justice. The requirements of natural
justice depend upon the facts and circumstances
of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules
under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject
-matter to be dealt with and so on. Concept of fair
play in action which is the basis of natural justice
must depend upon the particular lis between the
parties. (See K. L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India).
Rules and practices are constantly developing to
ensure fairness in the making of decisions which
affect people in their daily lives and livelihood.
Without such fairness democratic governments
cannot exist. Beyond all rules and procedures that
is the sine qua non.”
21. Further keeping the petitioner under suspension
for such a long period since 28.11.2014 till the impugned
order dated 28.02.2018 came to be passed, without extending
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
18/20
the subsistence allowance; strengthen the submission of the
petitioner that he was subjected to oppressive behaviour at the
hands of the then Chairman and the very issuance of the order
of suspension and the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding
which led to passing of the impugned order is actuated with
malafide and prejudice mind.
22. It would be suffice to observe that existence of a
real danger of bias, would vitiate the administrative action but
fanciful allegations of bias would not; it must be determined
on the facts and circumstances of each case. It would be apt
and proper to quote ” The test, therefore, is as to whether a
mere apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of
bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances
must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion
drawn therefrom – In the event however the conclusion is
otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger of
bias, the administrative action cannot be sustained: If on the
other hand, the allegations pertaining to bias is rather
fanciful and otherwise to avoid a particular court, tribunal or
authority, question of declaring them to be unsustainable
would not arise. The requirement is availability of positive
and cogent evidence and it is in this context that we do record
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
19/20
our concurrence with the view expressed by the Court of
Appeal in Locabail case.“[Vide: (2001) 1 SCC 182: Kumaon
Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd vs Girja Shankar Pant & Ors]
23. Coming to the impugned order, this Court finds
that though in the earlier round of litigation, after setting aside
the order of dismissal, the matter was relegated to the
Chairman to consider the show cause reply of the petitioner
afresh but similar mistake has been done, inasmuch as, there
is no discussion and deliberation as to why the reply to the
second show cause of the petitioner is not accepted. Though
the grounds taken by the petitioner have been summarily
noted but it came to be turned down by holding it either
baseless, wrong and unacceptable. To hold that the cause
shown can be summarily rejected in one line by saying that it
was not satisfactory or acceptable is held to vesting
completely arbitrary and canalise powers in the authority.
There must be at least a brief analysis of the defence/grounds
supported by reasons while it was not acceptable. Since the
entire departmental proceeding has been initiated without
following the rules, regulation and de hors the principles of
natural justice, the impugned order, in the opinion of this
Court, is per se illegal and unsustainable in law. Accordingly,
Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2019 dt.21-07-2025
20/20
the same stands set aside.
24. Since the Committee has already been dissolved
and now the entire affairs are being looked into by the
officials of the Revenue Department, this Court is left with
only option to direct the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to ensure
the admissible consequential benefits, preferably within a
period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order, in accordance with law.
25. The application stands allowed.
26. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 16.06.2025 Uploading Date 24 .07.2025 Transmission Date N.A.
[ad_1]
Source link