Md. Tanwirul Quamar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 4 August, 2025

0
1

Patna High Court

Md. Tanwirul Quamar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 4 August, 2025

Author: Anshuman

Bench: Anshuman

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9650 of 2016
     ======================================================
     Md. Tanwirul Quamar S/o Late Md. Sulaiman R/o Vill- Haidarganj Karah,
     P.S.- Silao, District- Nalanda, presently posted as Senior Deputy Collector,
     Purnea.

                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s

                                          Versus


1.   The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration
     Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar,
     Patna.
3.   The Joint Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar,
     Patna.
4.   The Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of
     Bihar, Patna.
5.   Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Department Enquiry Commissioner, General
     Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
6.   The District Magistrate, Samastipur.

                                                                  ... ... Respondent/s

     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s      :      Mr. Munna Prasad Dixit, Advocate
                                      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dixit, Advocate
                                      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chaubey, Advocate
                                      Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate
                                      Mr. Punit Ranjan Dixit, Advocate
                                      Mr. Milind Raj Dixit, Advocate
                                      Mr. Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s      :      Mr. Raghwanand, GA-11
                                      Mr. Pratik Kumar, AC to GA-11

     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
     CAV JUDGMENT
     Date : 04-08-2025


                            Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and

      learned Counsel for the State.

                            2. The present writ petition has been filed by the
 Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
                                           2/21




         petitioner with the following reliefs:-

                                                       "1. To quash the order
                                 contained        in        Memo        No.7036        dated
                                 17.05.2016

issued by Additional Secretary to
Government, General Administration
Department, by which the representation
dated 27.01.2015 submitted by the petitioner
against Departmental Enquiry
Commissioner has been rejected. For further
direction to the respondent authorities to
conduct fresh enquiry after appointing
another conducting officer.

“1(a). To quash the
notification contained in Memo No.9119
dated 28.06.2016, issued by the Additional
Secretary, Department of General
Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna
(respondent No.4) whereby the petitioner,
who was posted as Senior Deputy Collector,
Purnea, has been dismissed from service.

1(b). To direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner on his
post with all consequential benefits
forthwith.

1(c). To issue an appropriate
writ/order/direction in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the Enquiry Report
dated 29.07.2015 as contained in Annexure-

4 to the writ petition being perverse, unfair
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
3/21

and in flagrant violation of the principle of
natural justice.”

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that petitioner was appointed as Deputy Collector in the year

1999 on the recommendation of the BPSC and sent to Dumka

(now Jharkhand) for training. He submits that after completion

of training, he was posted as Executive Magistrate in Latehar

(now in Jharkhand) in the year 2000 where he discharged his

duty to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. In the year

2007, he was posted as Circle Officer-cum-Block Development

Officer in Shivajinagar, Samastipur. On 12.05.2008 while the

petitioner was posted as Circle Officer, the then Mukhiya of

Shankarpur Panchayat, Shivaji Nagar, Samastipur, made a

complaint in Vigilance against the petitioner. On the said

complaint, verification was conducted and a pre-trap

memorandum was prepared on 14.05.2008. On 15.05.2008, a

trap team conducted raid and petitioner was arrested taking

bribe of Rs.50,000/- from one Ram Dayal Singh and based on

the trap, a post-trap memorandum was prepared and Vigilance

P.S. Case No.28 of 2008 was registered against the petitioner.

Counsel submits that vide Memo No.6332 dated 11.06.2008,

petitioner was suspended while he was in custody. On being

released from the custody, the petitioner filed CWJC No.19825
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
4/21

of 2010 against the order of suspension before this Hon’ble

Court. Counsel submits that a show-cause notice was issued to

the petitioner asking as to why departmental proceeding be not

initiated against him. The petitioner gave his reply to the show-

cause on 05.03.2010. Thereafter, vide Memo No.2099 dated

21.02.2011, departmental proceeding was initiated and memo of

charge was also issued framing two charges against the

petitioner and Departmental Enquiry Commissioner was

appointed as the Conducting Officer. Counsel submits that vide

order dated 11.04.2011, CWJC No.19825 of 2010 was allowed

and the order by which petitioner was suspended was set aside.

However, against the order dated 11.04.2011, the State had

preferred Review application bearing Civil Review No.494 of

2011. Counsel submits that petitioner has also filed contempt in

MJC No.973 of 2012, against the non-compliance of the

aforesaid order. He submits that both review as well as contempt

were heard together and vide order dated 02.09.2013, the review

application was allowed and the writ petition was proposed to

be heard afresh and contempt application stood dismissed as

infructuous. Thereafter, CWJC was heard afresh and the

Hon’ble Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the order

of suspension of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
5/21

District Magistrate, Samastipur has given a clean chit to the

petitioner in its report vide Memo No.276 dated 09.07.2013

addressed to the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner. It is

therefore clear that the petitioner was made a scapegoat at the

behest of the then Mukhiya. He further submits that the

Departmental Enquiry Commissioner did not take note of the

District Magistrate’s comment on the petitioner’s show-cause.

He submits that on 14.08.2015 the petitioner was posted as

Senior Deputy Collector, Purnea, and is discharging his duties

there since then. He submits that the departmental enquiry

continued and the conducting officer submitted his enquiry

report on 29.07.2015 and the petitioner was directed to submit

his response on the enquiry report vide letter No.11565 dated

10.08.2015. Copies of the Enquiry Report dated 29.07.2015 and

letter dated 10.08.2015 are annexed as Annexures-4 and 5

respectively to this application. Counsel submits that vide letter

dated 12.08.2015 the petitioner was directed to submit an

affidavit regarding the allegation made in application dated

27.01.2015 (Annexure-3). Counsel submits that the petitioner

vide his letter dated 10.09.2015, asked for certain documents

that were relied upon in the proceeding but the same was not

supplied to the petitioner. The documents were supplied but no
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
6/21

decision as such was taken on the letter dated 27.01.2015. He

submits that on 14.09.2015 and 23.12.2015, reminders for filing

response on the enquiry report (Annexure-4) was served to the

petitioner. The petitioner submitted his response so required on

14.01.2016 denying all the charges and findings in the enquiry

report as also his grievance over not taking any action over his

complaint (Annexure-3).

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that when no action had been taken on the letter dated

27.01.2015 then the petitioner has filed CWJC No.1530 of

2016, which was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court on

11.04.2016 with a direction to the Principal Secretary to dispose

of petitioner’s representation within a period of one month.

Thereafter, on 17.05.2016, the Additional Secretary, General

Administration Department rejected the representation dated

27.01.2015 of the petitioner in quite whimsical manner without

going into the issues raised by the petitioner. He submits that the

impugned actions of the respondent authorities are in violation

of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as also in the

principles of natural justice.

5. Counsel further submits that without waiting

for the outcome of representation of the petitioner, enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
7/21

report has been submitted, which shows the mala fide intention

of the respondents against the petitioner. Counsel submits that

from perusal of the complaint it is apparent that it was not

supported with an affidavit, which is the mandatory requirement

for vigilance enquiry against anyone. But in the present case, the

Vigilance Department contrary to its own guidelines/directives,

accepted the complain of the complainant. He submits that it is

relevant to state here that one Tapeshwar Singh, Mukhiya, has

made allegation against the petitioner that he is asking for

Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand only), but from perusal

of the verification report, it appears that along with Shashi

Bhushan Pandey, Inspector, Vigilance, Ram Dayal Singh S/o.

Tapeshwar Singh went to meet the petitioner. It also appears

from the verification report that when the petitioner and Ram

Dayal Singh were having conversation, the Inspector was not

present but even then he submitted the verification report

against the petitioner. He submits that from perusal of post-trap

memorandum, it is not clear that who had given or from whom

the petitioner had taken Rs.50,000/- and signature of either

complainant or his son was also not there on the post trap

memorandum, which also show that none of them were present

at the time of alleged trap. He submits that memo of charge
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
8/21

dated 12.09.2008 was served to the petitioner and the petitioner

submitted his reply denying all the charges mentioned in the

memo of charge. He submits that after a gap of almost a year

of submission of reply by the petitioner, the departmental

proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Memo

No.2099 dated 21.02.2011, which was served on the petitioner

on 23.04.2011. Counsel submits that the petitioner vide letter

No.21.09.2021, addressed to the Principal Secretary, General

Administration Department, submitted the list of documents

required in the departmental proceeding from the Circle and

Block Offices of Shivajinagar (Samastipur) and Vigilance

Department, but all the documents as per the list of documents

were not supplied to him which has prejudiced the case of the

petitioner.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that very claim of the complainant that a list of

beneficiaries has been recommended and sent to the petitioner,

which is the very foundation of the complaint, get falsified by

the above said report/comment dated 09.07.2013. He submits

that there was no mention of any reference of the said list in the

complaint petition or in the verification report nor any such list

was ever seized by the verifier or the Trap-team at the time of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
9/21

raid. He submits that in course of the Departmental Proceeding

No.09/11, the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the

witnesses; rather in its place he was asked by the conducting

officer to frame a written questionnaire for the witnesses and

supply it to them, who will answer and submit the same before

the conducting officer, which is apparently against the

provisions so laid in the Indian Evidence Act. Counsel submits

that the complainant was examined on the point of his complaint

only and he was not at all examined on Pre-trap memorandum,

post trap memorandum and about the alleged incident. He

submits that one Shashi Bhushan Pandey, who is said to be the

verifier, has also not been examined. He submits that copies of

original deposition of witnesses have also not been provided to

the petitioner and after a long gap, only typed copies had been

made available to the petitioner. He submits that the

Departmental Enquiry Commissioner vide its order dated

13.05.2014, contained in Memo No.231/CDE dated 20.05.2014,

has also requested the S.P., Vigilance for making sure the

appearance of the said Shashi Bhushan Pandey in the

proceeding, but even then the said Shashibhushan Pandey, S.I.,

who had verified the allegation against the petitioner, did not

appear in course of the proceeding. The Presenting Officer also
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
10/21

requested the said Shashi Bhushan Pandey (wrongly typed as

Shashibhushan Jha) to appear in the proceeding, but even then

also he did not appear. He submits that the petitioner again filed

a protest against such act/conduct of the Conducting Officer

vide letter dated 12.01.2015, but no action in this regard had

been taken. He submits that the independent witnesses belong to

the Shankarpur Panchayat and as such influence of the

informant (Mukhiya) over them cannot be denied. He submits

that before issuance of impugned order dated 28.06.2016

(Annexure-8), no second show cause has been asked from the

petitioner. He submits that the entire proceeding against the

petitioner, which is apparent from the facts and circumstances

stated above, has been initiated with an intention to dismiss the

petitioner from service and nothing else. He submits that apart

from the present alleged incidence, the ACR of petitioner is

outstanding. Counsel submits that the petitioner brings certain

facts, pleadings and documents on record, which will prove that

entire action and impugned order are fit to be set aside being

based on perverse finding of the Conducting Officer and also

the report submitted by him on 29.07.2015 as contained in

Annexure-4 is based on conjecture, surmises and in violation of

the principle of natural justice and also contrary to the allegation
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
11/21

of the charge of memorandum. He submits that the petitioner is

having good prima facie case and balance of convenience is also

in his favour, therefore, this application is fit to be allowed.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner concluded

his argument relying on the following judgments. The first

judgment on which he relied is case of Indrani Bai Vs. Union

of India and Others reported in 1994 Supp (2) Supreme

Court Cases 256, the second is case of Registrar of

Cooperative Societies, Madras and Another Vs. F.X.

Fernando reported in (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 746 and

third is the case of Chakradhar Das Vs. The State of Bihar &

Others reported in 2007 (3) PLJR, in which he submits that the

delinquent Officer has entertained a doubt about the impartiality

of the inquiry to be conducted by the Inquiry Officer and when

he made representation at the earliest, requesting to change the

Inquiry Officer, the authority should have acceded to the request

and appoint another Inquiry Officer, other than the one whose

objectivity was doubted. Any order passed by the Inquiry

Officer in a mechanical manner is not sustainable, more

particularly when the order is cryptic without consideration of

show-cause. He submits that the fundamental duty under the

departmental proceeding lies on the Inquiry Officer to grant due
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
12/21

opportunity to the parties and then only pass order.

8. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other

hand, submits that when the petitioner was posted as Circle

Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Shivaji Nagar,

Samastipur, the Mukhiya of Shankarpur Panchayat submitted a

complaint to the Vigilance Department alleging therein that the

petitioner was demanding Rs.55,000/- illegal gratification/bribe

for sanctioning the amount related to Indira Awas Yojna and

compensation for the scheme relating to damage of crops among

the beneficiaries of the aforesaid Block/Circle. He submits that

on receipt of the complaint, a team of Vigilance Investigation

Bureau on 15.05.2008 apprehended the petitioner with the

amount of Rs.50,000/- and registered Vigilance P.S. Case No.28

of 2008. He submits that the petitioner was found guilty of

gross misconduct as per the provisions contained in Rule 3(i)(i)

of the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976 and the

petitioner was suspended on 15.05.2008. He submits that for the

same set of allegation, the Disciplinary Authority initiated

departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide Memo

No.2099 dated 21.02.2011. He submits that Enquiry

Commissioner was appointed as conducting officer to look into

the allegation levelled against the petitioner. He submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
13/21

enquiry officer after going through the facts and circumstances

of the case found the charges levelled against the petitioner

proved and submitted enquiry report vide letter No.369 dated

29.07.2015. He submits that when petitioner was in

apprehension that charges levelled against him cannot be refuted

with cogent evidence, the petitioner filed pariwad/complaint

dated 27.01.2015. Counsel submits that the allegation made by

the petitioner against the conducting officer in his pariwad dated

27.01.2015 was merely an apprehension of the petitioner and his

motive was only to delay the departmental proceeding. He

submits that conducting officer in the instant departmental

proceeding was an I.A.S. Departmental Enquiry Commissioner,

Bihar, Patna, whose integrity can not be doubted. He submits

that the enquiry report along with points of disagreement, if any,

were supplied to the the petitioner as per the provisions of Rule

18(3) of Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Counsel submits that the

petitioner had been given ample opportunity under Section

18(3) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Counsel submits that the

petitioner was supplied all the documents sought by him vide

letter dated 23.12.2015 and he was again directed to submit his

representation within 15 days. Thereafter, the petitioner

submitted his reply vide his letter No.95 dated 14.01.2016 in
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
14/21

which instead submitting his defence, he argued that he has filed

the instant writ petition and prayed that the departmental

proceeding against him may be stayed till the final order passed

by the Hon’ble High Court. He submits that the above stand

taken by the petitioner itself proved that he is not interested in

conclusion of departmental proceeding rather his intention was

to delay the departmental proceeding. Learned Counsel for the

State lastly submits that from the facts mentioned herein above,

this writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

9. After hearing the parties and going through the

materials available on record, it transpires to this Court that the

departmental proceeding had been initiated against the

petitioner after his arrest taking bribe of Rs.50,000/- based on

pre-trap and post-trap memorandum resulting into Vigilance P.S.

Case No.28 of 2008. He was arrested then suspended on

11.06.2008, enlarge on bail on 16.01.2009, moved before this

Court in CWJC No.19825 of 2010 by which his order of

suspension has been revoked followed by show-cause notice as

to why departmental proceeding be not initiated against him and

upon consideration of his reply to the show-cause departmental

proceeding was initiated vide Memo No.2099 dated 21.02.2011

and memo of charge had also been served, in which
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
15/21

Departmental Inquiry Commissioner was appointed as

Conducting Officer. Petitioner had also preferred Civil Review

No.494 of 2011 as well as Contempt Petition bearing M.J.C.

No.937 of 2012 arising from the order dated 11.04.2011 passed

in CWJC No.19825 of 2010, in which MJC was dropped and

CWJC No.19825 of 2010 with Civil Review No.494 of 2011

was disposed of on 20.03.2015 setting aside the order of

suspension. Suspension was revoked and his departmental

proceeding was continued during which he has filed an

application on 27.01.2015 before the Principal Secretary,

General Administration Department, about bias against him. The

claim of the petitioner is that during pendency of the

departmental inquiry no decision was taken on his application

for bias. He has repeatedly submitted his reminder to change

the Inquiry Officer, but nothing happened then he filed CWJC

No.1530 of 2016 which was disposed of on 11.04.2016 with a

direction to the Principal Secretary to dispose off the

representation of the petitioner within one month. In compliance

of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court the Additional

Secretary, General Administration Department, has considered

his application and rejected on 17.05.2016. Counsel has made

allegation that petitioner has filed his representation on
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
16/21

27.01.2015 on which decision had been taken on 17.05.2016,

but inquiry report was submitted on 29.07.2015 itself, and,

therefore, the petitioner has moved before this Hon’ble Court

initially with a prayer to quash the order contained in Memo

No.7036 dated 17.05.2016 by which his representation of bias

has been rejected but, subsequently, the final order has been

passed by the Disciplinary Authority contained in Memo

No.9119 dated 28.06.2016 as well as inquiry report dated

29.07.2015 has been challenge. It transpires to this Court that

prior to filing of the present writ petition i.e., 16.06.2016 inquiry

report has already been submitted.

10. From the argument made by Counsel for the

petitioner that during the departmental proceeding the petitioner

was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses; rather he was

asked by the Conducting Officer to frame a written

questionnaires for the witnesses and supply it to them,who will

answer the same and submit before the Conducting Officer

which, according to the petitioner, is apparent according to the

provisions so laid in the Indian Evidence Act. In this regard, this

Court is of the view that in the departmental proceeding the

cross-examination shall not used to take place, according to

strict compliance of the Evidence Act; rather no specific
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
17/21

guideline mentioned in Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 save and

except to cross-examine. In departmental proceeding, provision

of cross-examination is there and in the opinion of the Court, it

may be taken place either oral or written, therefore, there is no

wrong done by the inquiry officer by asking to frame a written

questionnaire for the witnesses, supplied to them so that they

will answer, particularly, when the conduct of the petitioner is

very much clear that he has moved before this Hon’ble Court on

every point twice earlier with a view to delay the proceeding.

Hence,there is no substance in the point of the petitioner.

11. Another point on which the Counsel for the

petitioner put emphasis that the complainant was examined on

the point of his complaint only by the Inquiry Officer and he

was not at all cross-examined on pre-trap memorandum, post

trap memorandum and about the alleged incident. In this regard,

this Court is of the view that the examination and cross-

examination of the complainant/informant shall definitely take

place in the criminal proceeding in pending Vigilance case,

where the allegations have to be proved beyond all reasonable

doubts, but here in the departmental proceeding, the inquiry

officer has to ascertain only that whether the complaint made by

the complainant is really made by him or not and only
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
18/21

preponderance of probability has to be tested. Therefore, this

Court is of the view that this point shall also not support the

petitioner at all. In departmental proceeding, the complainant

came forward, has been examined on the point of his

complaint is sufficient, which has been done in the present case.

12. There is no need of examination of verifier in

the departmental proceeding. It is made clear that when the

departmental inquiry officer has directed the S.P. Vigilance

about appearance of S.I. and if he has not appeared then, by

virtue of same, the departmental proceeding shall not be failed

and allegation of complainant is sufficient to proceed.

13. The further point he has taken that the

petitioner has filed protest against the Conducting Officer and

also to call the independent witnesses of the relevant Panchaiyat

which has been denied by the Conducting Officer are

concerned, in this regard the conducting officer has to test only

that whether complaint has been made or not? Which has been

proved by the complainant himself. There is no need of calling

any independent witness. The question of bias against the

Conducting Officer has already been tested by this Hon’ble

Court, in which observation has come and officials have passed

order in compliance of the Hon’ble Court’s order. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
19/21

judgments on which petitioner relied, the first judgment

Indrani Bai‘s case (supra) is not applicable in the present case

due to the reason that in this case, the case has been decided on

the factual matrix that the departmental proceeding was

conducted ex parte and the delinquent could not appear before

the Inquiry Officer. Here is not the same case, hence, this Court

is of the firm view that case of Indrani Bai (supra) is not

applicable in the present case. The second case is Registrar of

Cooperative Societies Madras and another (supra) is also not

applicable in the present case, due to the reason that in this case

issuance of charge memo has been issued by an authority, who

is not competent at all, who directed to conduct the inquiry

proceeding has been the subject of test. But, here situation is

quite different. The third case on which the petitioner relied is

Chakradhar Das (supra), Chakardhar Das case is also not

applicable in the present case due to the reason that the factual

matrix of the present case is quite different as in the case the

departmental proceeding is relating to disobedience of the

transfer order, but here in the present case departmental

proceeding is going against the petitioner, who was posted as

Circle Officer-cum- Block Development Officer, Siwaji Nagar,

Samastipur, and on the complaint of Mukhiya of Sankarpur
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
20/21

Panchayat that petitioner was demanding Rs.55,000/- illegal

gratification/bribe for sanction of amount relating to Indira Awas

Yojana and compensation for scheme relating to damage of crop

amongst the beneficiaries of aforesaid Block/Circle. A Vigilance

Investigation Bureau following the procedure, conducted a raid

in which the petitioner was apprehended with Rs.50,000/- and

particularly the complainant came forward and adduced

evidence before the Conducting Officer that allegation is true,

which was subsequently resulted into dismissal from service

after following due process. Counsel submits that second show-

cause has not been served upon him but vide letter No.11565

dated 10.08.2015 he was directed to submit his representation in

the light of inquiry report in the form of second show-cause and

then final order has been passed.

14. It is made clear that upon specific query of

this Court that why petitioner had not preferred review, Counsel

submits that the petitioner is a Gazetted Officer and instead of

opting the review he submits that the inquiry report as well as

the final order has been tested by the Council of Ministers and

approved by the Bihar Public Service Commission. Therefore,

this case has been filed directly before this Hon’ble Court.

15. In the light of the above said discussions that
Patna High Court CWJC No.9650 of 2016 dt.04-08-2025
21/21

petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2025

neither demand of fresh inquiry nor to interfere in the impugned

orders shall be permitted. This Court finds that there is neither

any procedural irregularity nor violation of natural justice nor

excess punishment has been imposed. As such, there is no need

to interfere in the punishment order imposed and, hence, this

writ petition is hereby dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                22.07.2025
Uploading Date          05.08.2025
Transmission Date
 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here