Patna High Court
Mohan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal … on 18 June, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8652 of 2021
======================================================
Mohan Kumar, Son of Late Jago Choudhary, Resident of Kagaji Mohalla, P.S.
Biharsharif, District-Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Registration, Excise and
Prohibition Department,. Bihar, Patna.
2. The Joint Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Excise and Prohibition
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date :18-06-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to
the notification bearing No. 2742 dated 27.06.2014 issued under
the signature of the respondent No. 3 (Deputy Secretary, Bihar
Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna), whereby the petitioner was dismissed from
service under Rule 14(xi) of the Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
2/23
referred to as the "Rules, 2005"). The petitioner also sought
quashing of the notification bearing No. 3023 dated 04.09.2018
issued by the respondent no. 2 (Joint Secretary, Bihar
Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna), whereby the review preferred by the petitioner
came to be rejected. The challenge is also made to the finding of
the Enquiry Officer dated 09.03.2014, whereby the Enquiry
Officer has found the petitioner guilty of misconduct in terms of
Rule 3(1) of the Bihar Government Servant's Conduct Rules,
1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1976") on the
ground of the same being contrary to the earlier enquiry report
dated 14.08.2013, whereby the same Enquiry Officer has
exonerated the petitioner from all the charges on being found
the charges not proved.
3. The relevant necessary facts which led to filing of
the present writ petition are in a limited bound:
(i) While the petitioner was working as Sub Registrar
in the Sub Registry Office, Jainagar, Madhubani, on 03.08.2012
he was trapped by the raiding party of Economic Offences Unit.
The petitioner was allegedly caught red handed while receiving
Rs.2500/- from one Mahesh Singh and accordingly FIR bearing
Economic Offences P.S. Case No. 11/2012 was registered for
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
3/23
the offences punishable under Sections 7/13(2) read with section
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On account of the
aforesaid act, the petitioner was taken into judicial custody
which led to issuance of office order as contained in Memo No.
4024 dated 24.08.2012 putting the petitioner under suspension.
(ii) A departmental proceeding was ordered to be
initiated against the petitioner vide resolution contained in
Memo No. 6262 dated 06.12.2012 by the order of the
respondent no. 3. The Inspector of Registration Offices, Tirhut
Division, Muzaffarpur was appointed as Enquiry Officer,
whereas the District Sub Registrar, Madhubani was appointed as
Presenting Officer. The resolution containing the memo of
charge dated 25.10.2012 was duly served upon the petitioner. In
response thereto, the petitioner submitted his detailed
explanation. The Enquiry Officer after completion of the
enquiry submitted the enquiry report under letter No. 213 dated
14.08.2013
(Annexure-7) with a specific finding that the
charges are not proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, the
Assistant Inspector General of Registration vide its letter dated
20.02.2014 (Annexure-8) directed the Enquiry Officer to record
the finding in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1976. The
aforesaid direction led to submission of supplementary enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
4/23
report dated 09.03.2014 with a finding that the charge of
misconduct in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1976 stood
proved.
(iii) Based upon the afore noted enquiry report, the
Additional Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna inflicted punishment
of dismissal after issuance of second show cause under letter
No. 1149 dated 14.03.2014.
(iv) Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a
review/memorial. Expecting the early disposal of the afore
noted review/memorial when nothing was done the petitioner
preferred CWJC No. 19331 of 2015 which was finally taken up
on 16.05.2018 and considering the pendency of the
review/memorial, the writ petition came to be disposed off with
a direction to dispose off the review/memorial within the
stipulated period.
(v) It would be worth mentioning here that in the
meanwhile the criminal case arising out of Vigilance (Trap
Case), Patna in Special Case No. 35 of 2012, corresponding to
Economic Offices Unit Case No. 11 of 2012 ended in acquittal
of the petitioner vide judgment dated 20.09.2017 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap Case), Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
5/23
Nonetheless, the review/memorial of the petitioner came to be
disposed of vide notification No. 3023 dated 04.09.2018
affirming the order of dismissal.
(vi) Both the order of dismissal and its affirmance in
the review/memorial were questioned before this Court in
CWJC No. 20022 of 2018. The petitioner on being strengthened
by the judgment of the trial court approached before the
authorities concerned and on assurance by the Department, he
withdrew the afore noted CWJC No. 20022 of 2018 with a
liberty to approach the respondent Department for re-
consideration of his case. However, the liberty prayed for by the
petitioner could not find place in the order dated 05.03.2020,
whereby the application was dismissed as withdrawn. Under the
afore noted circumstances, the petitioner was advised to file
MJC No. 1081 of 2020 and the Bench of this Court vide order
dated 17.02.2021 modified the order and extended liberty to the
petitioner to approach this Court if any fresh cause of action
arises. In the aforesaid premise the present writ petition came to
be filed.
4. Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned Advocate for the
petitioner while assailing the impugned orders and action of the
respondent authorities has contended that before initiation of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
6/23
departmental proceeding no preliminary enquiry was done at
the level of the Department; moreover the disciplinary authority
has given a complete go by to the mandatory prescriptions of
Rules, 2005. The subsequent finding of the Enquiry Officer was
nothing but at the dictates of the Assistant Inspector General of
Registration, Bihar. Once the Enquiry Officer has given a clear
finding that the charges did not stand proved, in no
circumstances the petitioner can be held to be guilty of
misconduct much less under Rule-3 (1) of the Rules, 1976. The
petitioner has never been given any opportunity of being heard
before finding of guilt under Rule 3(1) of Rules, 1976. There is
no discussion and deliberation over the explanation of the
petitioner by the disciplinary authority while considering the
second show cause reply of the petitioner, inasmcuh as, before
inflicting the punishment of dismissal the disciplinary authority
has only opined that the petitioner has not submitted the factual
reply to the point wise objection.
5. Mr. Kumar further contended that the identical
mistake has been committed by the reviewing authority while
considering the review application of the petitioner; moreover
the points raised in the review/memorial have not been
answered. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further urged that
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
7/23
the departmental enquiry leading to finding of guilt of
misconduct is based upon no evidence. Neither the witnesses
have been produced to prove the charges nor there is any
deliberation to the written defence of the petitioner. Heavy
reliance has been placed on various decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of:
(i) Roop Singh Negi Vs. The Punjab National Bank
& Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570,
(ii) State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar
Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772,
(iii) Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Anr reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3325,
[L.P.A. No.366 of 2022], reported in 2024 SCC Online Pat
3890,
(v) Srikant Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.
[L.P.A. No. 58 of 2024] reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Pat
7877,
(vi) Ram Lagan Ram Vs. The State of Bihar and
Ors. [L.P.A. No. 389 of 2024] and,
(vii) The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Vikash Kumar @
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
8/23
Vikas Kumar [L.P.A. No. 446 of 2024],
6. Refuting the aforesaid contentions advanced by the
learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned
Advocate for the State submitted that it is a clear case of trap
and there was recovery of cash from the petitioner. The recovery
of cash from the possession of the petitioner in the background
of a complaint filed by the complainant clearly pointing the guilt
of the petitioner; moreover the charges of misconduct levelled
against the petitioner stands proved during course of enquiry.
Based upon such enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed
from service under Rule 14(xi) of the Rules, 2005. The review
application filed by the petitioner also came to be rejected. It is
further contended that since the charges have already been
proved in a duly constituted enquiry, the High Court sitting in
appeal cannot reappreciate the evidences. The acquittal of the
petitioner in a criminal case could not come in his rescue as it is
well settled that in a criminal case the charges are to be proved
beyond all its reasonable doubt, whereas in a disciplinary
proceeding the charges are to be proved based on the
preponderance of probabilities. In the aforesaid premise, learned
Advocate for the State submitted that no interference is required
to the impugned orders.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
9/23
7. This Court has given anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the
respective parties and also meticulously perused the materials
available on record.
8. Indubitably, to bring the charges home and/or to
prove the charge of misconduct or otherwise, statutory
prescriptions have been prescribed under Rules, 2005 which
governs the process to conduct the departmental proceeding.
Rule 17 thereof prescribes the procedure for imposing major
penalties. Rule 17(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2005 states that there
must be a definite and distinct article of charge of misconduct or
misbehaviour, which shall contain a list of such document by
which, and a list of such witnesses by whom, the articles of
charge are proposed to be sustained. It would also be relevant to
notice the prescription as enumerated under Rule 17(2) of the
Rules, 2005 which stipulates that wherever the disciplinary
authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring
about the truth of any imputation of misconduct or
misbehaviour against a government servant, he may himself
inquire into it, or appoint under these Rules an authority to
inquire about the truth thereof.
9. Since the petitioner was trapped by the raiding team
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
10/23
of the Economic Offences Unit, which led to institution of the
FIR, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that preliminary
enquiry was required, in the opinion of this Court, the same is
not warranted as the material afore noted was sufficient enough
to place the petitioner for departmental proceeding.
10. Now coming to the memo of charge, it would be
evident that on account of acceptance of bribe at the hands of
the complainant, Mahesh Singh and on being sent to the judicial
custody leading to institution of the FIR as also the sanction of
the prosecution by the competent authority, the act of the
petitioner is said to be unbecoming of a government servant,
constituting grave misconduct. There would not be any
difficulty to accept that the entire allegation of misconduct is
based upon the demand and acceptance of bribe leading to
institution of the FIR. It is also admitted that there is no list of
witnesses to prove the charges. To sustain the article of charge,
the Department has placed reliance upon two letters; one
contained in Memo No. 1187 dated 07.08.2012 of the Inspector
General of Police Economic Offences Unit, Bihar, Patna wrote
to the Principal Secretary informing him about the allegation
levelled in the FIR and another letter contained in Memo No. 11
dated 04.10.2012 whereby the sanction for prosecution has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
11/23
issued. On receipt of the memo of charge and the afore noted
letters by which the charges are proposed to be sustained, the
petitioner submitted his detailed written defence.
11. Specific plea has been taken with regard to non
compliance of the mandatory prescriptions of Rules, 2005,
inasmuch as, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not
been served with the necessary complaint petition filed by the
complainant, pre and post trap memorandum, the statement of
witnesses as also the copy of the relevant sale deed register and
the authorization letter etc. The Enquiry Officer examined the
complainant and also took the statement of the employees of the
Sub Registry office and finally came to the conclusion that the
charges levelled against the petitioner did not stand proved. This
Court is conscious of the fact that once the Enquiry Officer has
submitted a detailed enquiry report, the disciplinary authority
may remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry
and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the
further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 17 as far as
may be, and/or in case the disciplinary authority, after receipt of
the enquiry report as per Rule 17 (23)(ii) or as per sub-rule (1),
shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority
on any article of charge, record its reasons for such
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
12/23
disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the
evidences on record is sufficient for the purpose.
12. In the case in hand, the Assistant Inspector General
Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department on being found
that there is no opinion with respect to Rule 3(1) of the Rules,
1976 had directed the Enquiry Officer to record its opinion over
it. Surprisingly, this time the Enquiry Officer after quoting Rule
3(1) of Rules, 1976 has found the conduct of the petitioner
against Rule 3(1) of Rules, 1976. To the utter surprise to this
Court this finding of Enquiry Officer does not stand to the
reason as to how once the charges of demand and acceptance of
bribe could not stand proved, the conduct of the petitioner is
said to be a grave misconduct only on account of institution of
the FIR and being taken into judicial custody. Time without
number the Court held that no person shall be condemned
unheard. Once the petitioner has been exonerated from the
charges, after conclusion of the enquiry, if pursuant to the order
of the disciplinary authority, subsequent enquiry is proceeded,
the petitioner ought to be given opportunity to be heard before
giving a finding of guilt of grave misconduct. There is no
dispute the petitioner was accorded any opportunity to cross
examine the complainant; nonetheless, this Court is conscious
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
13/23
of the fact that initially the Enquiry Officer after proper
examination to all the witnesses and the complainant has
concluded with the finding of the exoneration of the petitioner.
The earlier enquiry report still holds the field good.
13. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Rajendra Prasad (supra) extracting the observation of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi
(supra) has held that the departmental proceeding is a quasi
judicial proceeding and the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi
judicial function. The Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a
finding after taking into consideration the materials available on
record by the parties. The learned Division Bench reiterated the
settled proposition as mandated in the case of Roop Singh Negi
(supra) that the evidence collected during investigation by the
Investigating Officer against the accused cannot be treated to be
evidence in the departmental proceeding. This would have to be
proved by examination of witnesses and mere tendering of
documents would not prove the contents thereof. It was
categorically observed the FIR itself cannot be considered as
valid evidence, even in a departmental proceeding.
14. The learned Division Bench, in this said case
further observed that merely on registration of an FIR, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
14/23
Enquiry Officer jumped into the conclusion of guilt of the
delinquent employee and the disciplinary authority also fell into
the same error and referred to documents produced by the
Presenting Officer, but not proved by either the author or the
custodian of such documents. As for the demand and acceptance
of bribe, neither was the complainant examined nor was any
witness, procured from the Vigilance Department, examined
before the Enquiry Officer. Again, the FIR was produced by the
Presenting Officer and without any further evidence or proof the
allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe was found proved.
The Enquiry Officer having found on his own wisdom
considering the charge that the misconduct stood proved; cannot
be legally countenanced, without any evidence led at the
enquiry.
15. Similar view was taken in the case of Ram Lagan
Ram (supra), wherein the Court, highlighting the observations
made by the Apex Court in the cases of Anil Kumar Vs.
Presiding Officer & Ors [(1985) 3 SCC 378] and Saroj Kumar
Sinha (supra) as also Roop Singh Negi (supra) held in
paragraph nos. 8, 15 and 16 as follows:
“8. The cited decision and the
decision in the case of Anil Kumar Vs.
Presiding Officer & Ors. reported in (1985) 3
SCC 378 emphasized the well-heeled principle
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
15/23that a disciplinary enquiry is a quasi-judicial
enquiry regulated by the principles of natural
justice and the Enquiry Officer being obliged
to act judicially. Anil Kumar (supra) was a
case where the enquiry officer was found to
have not applied his mind to the evidence,
since, but for setting out the names of the
witnesses, the evidence laid was not discussed
at all, which led to the finding of guilt, being
termed as one arrived at on the ipse dixit of
the Enquiry Officer. State of U.P. & Ors Vs.
Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC
772, held that an Enquiry Officer acting in a
quasi-judicial capacity, is in the position of an
independent adjudicator and even in the
absence of the delinquent, his function is to
examine the evidence presented by the
department to see as to whether the evidence is
sufficient to hold that the charges are proved.
15. We have also looked at the
enquiry report which merely records that the
allegation registered under clause 1 & 2 prima
facie appears to be in violation of Rule 9(1)(c)
of Bihar Government Servants (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The
employee’s contention that the allegation is in
the nature of a conspiracy was disbelieved for
no evidence having been led to prove the
conspiracy. The Vigilance Court was found to
have the right to hear and decide the
allegations registered under Case No. 72 of
2001. The Enquiry Report further states that it
is from the above recorded facts and
observations in the show cause notice filed by
(sic) the accused employee that an FIR was
registered, and the charges framed in Form-A
was held to be proved. The findings are
perfunctory, presumptive and unsupported by
any valid evidence. Mere registration of an
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
16/23FIR would not bring in the preponderance of
probability to prove the charge against the
accused, even in a disciplinary enquiry, is our
definite opinion.
16. We also notice the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop
Sing Negi Vs. Punjan National Bank reported
in (2009) 2 SCC 570, which categorically held
that mere production of documents is not proof
even in a departmental enquiry and the
contents of documentary evidence will have to
be proved by examining witnesses. It was
categorically held that an FIR in itself is not
evidence without actual proof of facts stated
therein. The Department could have examined
the witnesses, as we noticed; the Complainant,
members of the trap team or even the
independent witnesses to the trap, to prove the
facts as stated in the FIR.”
16. Looking at the facts of the present case, the
allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe did not stand
substantiated in the enquiry, nonetheless, the Enquiry Officer
gave a finding that the act of the petitioner constitutes grave
misconduct under Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1976 which, in the
opinion of this Court, is clearly contradictory and at odds with
each other, could not be accepted simultaneously in any
circumstances. In the absence of the charge of demand and
acceptance of bribe proved, the act of the delinquent cannot be
held to be grave misconduct, especially when there is only one
charge i.e., with respect to demand and acceptance of bribe
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
17/23
leading to lodging of the FIR and taking the petitioner into
judicial custody.
17. Now coming to the impugned order of dismissal
passed by the disciplinary authority, it appears that there is no
discussion and deliberation of any of the grounds raised by the
petitioner in the reply to the second show cause. This Court has
gone through the reply submitted by the petitioner which is a
voluminous one runs in more than 22 pages, apart from the
document in support of their submission; the same has been
surprisingly negated in two lines by stating as follows:
ÞJh dqekj }kjk vius mÙkj esa dafMdkokj vkifÙk ds
fcUnqvksa ij rF;kRed tokc lefiZr ugha fd;k gS] ftlls
Li”V gksrk gS fd Jh dqekj dks lapkyu inkf/kdkjh dk
fu”d”kZ Lohdkj gSAß
18. It is trite law as has been emphasized and
reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court that “the final
order must display complete application of mind to the grounds
mentioned in the show cause notice, the defence taken in reply,
followed by at least a brief analysis of the defence supported by
reasons why it was not acceptable. To hold that the cause shown
can be cursorily rejected in one line by saying that it was not
satisfactory or acceptable in our opinion shall be vesting
completely arbitrary and uncanalised powers in the authority. In
a given situation if the authority concerned finds the cause
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
18/23
shown to be difficult to deal and reject, it shall be very
convenient for him not to discuss the matter and reject it by
simply stating that it was not acceptable. The giving of reasons
in such a situation is an absolute imperative and a facet of
natural justice. Reasons have been held to be the heart and soul
of an order giving insight to the mind of the maker of the order,
and that he considered all relevant aspect and eschewed
irrelevant aspects”. [vide:Kems Services Private Limited vs.
The State of Bihar and Ors. {2014 (1) PLJR 622}]
19. The consequence of assigning reasons by quasi
judicial authority has been elaborately summarized by the Apex
Court in the case of M/S Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs
Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors [(2010) 9 SCC 496] directing the
quasi judicial authority to record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
20. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the
case of The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Arun Kumar Dubey &
Anr. [LPA No. 837 of 2023] has held that the disciplinary
authority is under obligation to provide consideration of the
entire circumstances of the case in order to decide the nature
and extent of penalty to be imposed. The delinquent is entitled
to the consideration of the show-cause by the Disciplinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
19/23
Authority and the application of mind of said authority is
imperative, before imposing any punishment. Thus, where no
reason is assigned as to why the reply is found unsatisfactory
and punishment is imposed thereupon, it only becomes apparent
that there has been no application of mind by the authority for
giving of reasons in support of an order, which effects a person’s
basic need of the principles of natural justice.
21. This Court also perused the impugned order of the
reviewing authority passed on the review/memorial preferred by
the petitioner; it also runs in 80 pages and substantive grounds
have been taken based upon various dictum of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court; but again this has also not
been taken into consideration while negating the contention of
the petitioner. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that
the review/memorial was filed long back in the year 2014,
specifically on 14.10.2014 but it came to be disposed of after
four years on 04.09.2018, that too when the petitioner has
approached this Court. Similar error as elaborately discussed in
the aforegoing paragraphs, has been committed by the
reviewing authority; all the more so the impugned order is based
upon the subsequent enquiry report which, in the opinion of this
Court, is quite perfunctory and based upon no evidence.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
20/23
22. There is one another aspect of the matter which is
mandatorily required to be noticed before parting with the final
outcome. True it is that mere acquittal in criminal proceeding
does not confer any right to the employee to claim benefit
including re-instatement. However, where charges in
departmental enquiry and criminal court are identical, evidence
witnesses and circumstances are also same, and where the court
in exercise of judicial review finds that the acquittal in criminal
proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution
evidence and the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
charge, the court can interfere with the order passed by the
disciplinary authority where findings of disciplinary authority
are unjust, unfair and oppressive. Suffice it to observe that the
case depends on its own facts.
23. The aforesaid settled proposition has been duly
clarified by the Apex Court in the cases of Capt. M. Paul
Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. [(1999) 3 SCC
679]; G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.[(2006) 5 SCC
446] and Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(2024(1)
SCC 175].
24. This Court has also noticed the judgment of the
learned trial court; in the departmental enquiry conducted by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
21/23
Enquiry Officer and during course of trial the statement of
complainant was recorded and both the Enquiry Officer as well
as trial court have come to the finding that the delinquent
accused has not demanded bribe from the complainant and he
has not given bribe to the accused nor bribe money was
recovered in his presence, apart from various vital
contradictions and irregularities in the evidence of prosecution
which led to acquittal of the petitioner.
25. In a criminal trial undoubtedly a finding of guilt
can be based only if the offence is proved beyond reasonable
doubt; whereas in a departmental enquiry mere preponderance
of probability would be suffice. However, even for entering a
finding on preponderance of probability, there should be some
evidence led regarding the charges. This Court cannot
countenance the finding of the Enquiry Officer that he is not
looking into the facts as to whether a bribe was taken or not.
When the allegation is of demand and acceptance of bribe, there
should be some semblance of evidence regarding such demand
and acceptance, by either examining the complainant or a
member of the trap team, in which case, there could be a finding
on preponderance of probabilities.
26. The Apex Court while highlighting the principle
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
22/23
and parameters of judicial review in the cases of Kuldeep Singh
vs. The Commissioner of Police & Ors. [(1999) 2 SCC 10] as
well as Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610]
has held that the Court while exercising its power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India could not sit in appeal over
those findings and assume the role of the Appellate Authority in
considering the punishment imposed, based on disciplinary
proceeding but it can definitely interfere if there is no evidence
to support the findings or the findings recorded are such which
would not have been arrived at by an ordinary prudent man or
the findings were perverse or made under the dictates of the
superior authority.
27. Under the afore noted facts and circumstances and
the discussions in the premise of settled proposition of law, this
Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders/
notifications as contained in Memo No. 2742 dated 27.06.2014
as also Memo No. 3023 dated 04.09.2018 are wholly
unsustainable in law and as such are hereby set aside.
28. The application stands allowed.
29. On account of quashing of the impugned orders,
the petitioner is directed to be reinstated with all consequential
benefits.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8652 of 2021 dt.18-06-2025
23/23
30. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
31. Parties shall bear their own cost.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 25.03.2025 Uploading Date 23.06.2025 Transmission Date N.A.