Patna High Court
Ramdeo Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 18 June, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4596 of 2020
======================================================
Ramdeo Yadav S/o Lakhan Yadav R/o Village- Premjiwar, P.S.- Bahadurpur,
District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation through its Managing
Director, Son Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.
5. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, Son Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Darbhanga.
7. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga.
8. The Sub Divisional Officer, Benipur, Darbhanga.
9. The Special Executive Officer cum Deputy Chief (Legal) cum Inquiry
Officer of Departmental Proceeding, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies
Corporation Limited, Son Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.
10. The Deputy Chief Administration, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies
Corporation Limited, Son Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG 5
For the BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Shilpi Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
2/25
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 18-06-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated
08.11.2019
as contained in Annexure P/38 issued by the
Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies
Corporation, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “BSFC”),
whereby the representation of the petitioner preferred in terms
of order dated 06.08.2019 passed in CWJC No. 17137 of 2014
came to be rejected. The petitioner also assailed the enquiry
report submitted by the Special Executive Officer cum Deputy
Chief (Legal) cum Enquiry Officer dated 19.12.2013
(Annexure-P/25) as also the order contained in Memo No. 7763
dated 17.07.2014 came to be passed by the Managing Director
inflicting the punishment of (i) reduction to lower time scale for
three years without increment, (ii) forfeiture of all the benefits
except subsistence allowance during the period of suspension
and (iii) recovery of Rs. 3,70,244/- (Rs.2,30,245/- as cost of
grains and rice and Rs.1,39,999/- as interest).
3. The facts which led to filing of the present writ
petition are that while the petitioner was posted as Assistant
Godown Manager, Benipur, Darbhanga, on 28.04.2011, one
Rajesh Kumar Mandal, son of late Manoj Mandal filed a
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
3/25
complaint alleging therein that his father late Manoj Mandal
was suffering from cancer and was undergoing treatment at
Mahavir Cancer Sansthan, Patna with effect from 13.04.2011 to
20.04.2011 and he returned to his village on 20.04.2011 and
died on 21.04.2011, but the record showing receipt of
foodgrains, though, in the period, afore noted, there would not
be any question of receiving of 43.20 quintals of wheat and
64.60 quintals of rice on 19.04.2011. The aforesaid complaint
addressed to the Block Supply Officer was forwarded to the Sub
Divisional Officer on 29.04.2011 vide letter No. 80. Based on
the report of Block Supply Officer, the petitioner was directed
vide Memo No. 252 dated 30.04.2011 to submit his show cause
explanation within 24 hours. The show cause notice stated that
the food grains under Antyoday and BPL for the March 2011
were delivered to the Dealer late Manoj Mandal on 19.04.2011
pursuant to District Manager Order No. 55-56 dated 23.03.2011.
The Sub Divisional Officer, Benipur on being dissatisfied with
the show cause explanation of the petitioner vide its letter dated
09.06.2011 requested the Collector, Darbhanga to initiate
departmental and criminal proceeding against the petitioner for
alleged 64.60 quintals of rice and 43.20 quintals of wheat.
4. In the aforesaid premise, the petitioner was placed
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
4/25
under suspension vide Memo No. 5828 dated 19.07.2011 and
immediately a memo of charge in prapatra (ka) was duly served
upon him issued under the signature of the Managing Director
dated 12.12.2011. The charge memo specifically contains (i) the
allegation of suspicious delivery of food grains, despite the
Dealer being under the treatment of cancer from 13.04.2011 to
20.04.2011 and died on 21.04.2011; and (ii) interpolation of
records and misappropriation of 43.20 quintals of wheat and
64.40 quintals of rice on 19.04.2021. The Chief of
Administration, BSFC directed the petitioner to file his defence
statement vide letter No. 9121 dated 02.12.2011; and,
simultaneously instructed the District Manager to lodge the FIR.
In consequent thereto, Bahera P.S. Case No. 5 of 2012 came to
be instituted on 06.01.2012 under Sections 409, 420, 468 and
120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was accorded
regular bail on 15.06.2012 by the learned ACJM, Benipur. In the
meanwhile during investigation, the SDPO, Biraul submitted a
supervision report under Memo No. 577 of 2011 finding the
allegation of misappropriation to be false and baseless. The
afore noted supervision report was duly affirmed by the Senior
Superintendent of Police under Memo No. 3344 dated
19.08.2012.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
5/25
5. It would be pertinent to mention here that the police
after closure of investigation submitted final report in favour of
the petitioner due to lack of evidence. The same was accepted
by the learned ACJM, Benipur on 31.08.2018 and the criminal
case came to be closed.
6. During departmental enquiry, on submission of the
defence statement of the petitioner, a clarification was sought
from Mahavir Cancer Sansthan who confirmed that late Manoj
Mandal was admitted only from09.07.2010 to 05.08.2010
contradicting the earlier claim for cancer treatment in April
2011. The SDO, Benipur vide Memo No. 466 dated 22.09.2012
also asked the wife of late Manoj Mandal to show cause for her
affidavit stating therein that her husband had received and
distributed food grains on 19.04.2011. In response thereto, she
submitted her application enclosing her affidavit dated
13.07.2011 and the relevant supply and distribution documents
showing distribution of food grains on 20.04.2011, 24.04.2011
and 25.04.2011. In the written defence statement, the petitioner
also asserted that the delivery took place on 19.04.2011 and the
food grains were distributed subsequently by the dealer’s wife
and son. The Enquiry Officer upon completion of the enquiry
returned his finding holding the petitioner guilty of the charges
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
6/25
vide its report dated 19.12.2013. On receipt of the enquiry
report, the petitioner was served with the second show cause
notice under Memo No. 3546 dated 12.04.2014. The petitioner
immediately responded to the show cause notice reiterating the
facts and enclosing supply orders, affidavit and sale registers to
support his contention. The response of the petitioner did not
find favour and finally the petitioner was inflicted with the
punishment as disclosed hereinabove vide Memo No. 7763
dated 19.07.2014.
7. It would be worth mentioning herein that while the
petitioner was under suspension aggrieved with the action of the
respondent Corporation, he preferred CWJC No. 20496 of 2012
which came to be disposed of on 23.11.2012 by a Bench of this
Court directing the authorities to conclude the proceeding within
six months. Subsequently, in view of the closure of the criminal
case on account of acceptance of final form due to lack of
evidence, the petitioner again approached this Court in CWJC
No. 17137 of 2014 which was disposed of on 06.08.2019
directing the respondent Managing Director, BSFC to reconsider
the punishment awarded to the petitioner having regard to the
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul
Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr..[(1999) 3 SCC
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
7/25
679]. In pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a representation
annexing the order of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), however
it came to be rejected on the ground that the judicial process and
the disciplinary proceeding are different process and the
outcome of judicial process cannot be relied upon in the
disciplinary proceeding. In the fore noted background, the
present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner assailing
the impugned action and the order of the respondent
Corporation.
8. Mr. Alok Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner
taking this Court through the relevant annexures appended to
the writ petition has contended that the impugned orders have
been passed in complete ignorance of the materials available on
record and in a mechanical manner without considering the
documents and the facts available on record. The Enquiry
Officer before giving a finding of guilt did not examine any oral
evidence and allowed the petitioner to produce the defence
witnesses; he wrongly concluded that Rs.50976 returned to Rita
Devi, wife of Late Manoj Mandal through cheque dated
01.10.2011 was for March, 2011, whereas it was for April, 2011.
It is further contended that the impugned order rejecting the
representation of the petitioner is also in the teeth of the order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
8/25
this Court passed in CWJC No. 17137 of 2014, inasmuch as, the
respondent authorities failed to consider the mandate of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony
(supra). The orders have been passed without assigning any
reasons to differentiate from the discharge of the petitioner in
criminal proceeding arising out of the same alleged transaction
for which he has been held guilty in disciplinary proceeding.
The impugned orders said to be passed in a mechanical manner
without any regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and without any iota of evidence. Learned Advocate for the
petitioner has further taken this Court through the Bihar State
Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Service Conduct and
Disciplinary Conduct Rule, especially Rule 27 thereof. It is
lastly contended that the impugned order of punishment
awarded to the petitioner inter alia forfeiture of all the benefits,
except subsistence allowance is also in the teeth of Rule 97(3)
of the Bihar Service Code, 1952. To support the aforesaid
contention, reliance has also been placed on a Bench decision of
this Court in the case of Hrishikesh Tiwrai vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors.[CWJC No. 19680 of 2015].
9. To refute the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Shailendra
Kumar Singh with Ms. Shilpi Singh, learned Advocates for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
9/25
BSFC have primarily made a preliminary objection with regard
to maintainability of the writ petition in view of the alternative
remedy of statutory appeal before the Principal Secretary, Food
and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna against the order of punishment. It is further contended
that during the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded
the statement of the concerned and also sought a report from
Mahavir Cancer Sansthan. The written defence statement of the
petitioner was also duly considered and after thorough
examination, the Enquiry Officer returned the finding of guilt
against the petitioner. Charges levelled in prapatra(ka) stood
proved based upon which the Managing Director, BSFC
inflicted with the punishment as contained in Memo No. 7763
dated 17.07.2014, after giving a proper opportunity of hearing
and issuance of second show cause notice to the petitioner. The
Court has also been reminded with the scope of judicial review
while exercising power under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India.
10. Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, learned Advocate for the
State has also reiterated the afore noted submissions and
contended that the impugned orders do not require any
interference as the same has been passed in accordance with
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
10/25
law, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
even at the time of enquiry and the order passed by the
disciplinary authority as also at the time when the matter was
relegated to the disciplinary authority to consider the
representation of the petitioner in the light of the order of the
Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra).
11. This Court has given anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the
respective parties and also perused the materials available on
record. Before coming to the moot point for consideration
regarding legality of the impugned orders, it would be proper
for this Court to examine the preliminary objection of the
respondent Corporation. The issue of exhausting statutory
remedy of appeal has been considered time and again by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme in the case of K.S. Rashid And Son vs The Income-
Tax Investigation Commission & Ors.[AIR 1954 SC 207] and
further in the case of Union Of India vs T. R. Varma [AIR 1957
SC 882] as also in the case of The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs
Mohammad Nooh [AIR 1958 SC 86] have held that the Article
226 of the Constitution confers on all the High Courts a
very extensive power in the matter of issuing writs; which
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
11/25
power is purely discretionary and no limit can be placed upon
the discretion. However, when an alternative and equally
efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to
pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the
High Court to issue a prerogative writ. The Court, in
extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes
to the conclusion that there has been a breach of fundamental
principle of justice, therefore, in a proper case, power of writ
can be exercised, but should not be exercised generally where
other adequate legal remedy is available though it may not be,
per se a bar to issue a writ of prerogative.
12. In the case of Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Ors.[(2003) 2 SCC 107], the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that rule of exclusion of writ
jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of
discretion and not one of compulsion and the court must
consider the pros and cons of the case and then may interfere if
it comes to the conclusion that the writ seeks enforcement of
any of the fundamental rights; where there is failure of
principles of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings
are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an act and is
challenged. Reliance, in the said case, has also been placed in
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
12/25
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai
& Ors [(1998) 8 SCC 1].
13. In Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs Speaker,
Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors.[(2020) 2 SCC 595],
the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of
exercise of writ jurisdiction has held that the exhaustion of
alternative remedy; first is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion and thus not one of compulsion. The Court further
held that the writ jurisdiction forms part of basic structure of the
Constitution and that the Court functions in accordance with
applicable judicially determined parameters and it has duty not
to trespass into the domain of constitutional organs.
14. In the light of the mandate and rullings of the Apex
Court it would be evident that the exhaustion of alternative
remedy cannot be treated as absolute bar to entertain a writ
petition so as to amounts to denudation of the power of the
High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
which power can always be exercised in the fact and
circumstances of the case.
15. Now coming to the case in hand, admittedly, the
petitioner was served with the memo of charge in the year 2011,
which culminated into punishment and subsequent thereto in
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
13/25
view of the subsequent development and on account of closure
of the criminal case, after having found no evidence, the matter
was relegated to the concerned authority afresh and, in the
meantime, the petitioner had already been superannuated and
now this matter has come up for consideration before this Court.
Besides, 15 years spent in the litigation either before the
Department or before this Court, the reason for negating the
preliminary objection of the Corporation is in limited bound.
Relegating the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal would
nothing but virtually amounts to sending the petitioner from the
Court of Ceaser to ceaser’s wife and in fact it would be an
empty formality for the simple reason that the Managing
Director of the BSFC is the person who has been holding the
post of Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, Government of Bihar.
16. The reasons, afore noted, in the facts and
circumstances of this Court is sufficient enough to reject the
contention of the respondent Corporation and thus the matter is
being considered on its merits.
17. So far the issue as to whether the discharge on
closure of criminal case upon acceptance of the final form due
to lack of evidence will have effect on the disciplinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
14/25
proceeding and this ground would be sufficient enough to set
aside the punishment order of the petitioner can very well be
answered in the settled proposition of law as enunciated by the
Apex Court. Well settled it is that the acquittal in a criminal case
by self cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The order of
dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official had been
acquitted of the criminal charge, unless the accused has an
Hon’ble acquittal in his criminal trial, based upon the same set
of facts, as opposed to an acquittal due to witnesses turning
hostile or for technical reason, the acquittal shall not affect the
decision in the disciplinary proceeding and lead to automatic
reinstatement.
18. A three-judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case
of Baje Singh (Dead) Through His Legal Heirs vs The State
Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. [(2021) 12 SCC 568] while
reiterating the aforesaid settled legal proposition has held in
clear terms that mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to
reinstatement in service, acquittal has to be honourable. Reason
is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty
by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of
disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
15/25
the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the
prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is
settled law that strict burden of proof required to establish guilt
in a criminal court is not required in disciplinary proceedings
and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient.
19. In Karnataka Power Trans. Corp. Ltd. vs Sri C
Nagaraju[(2019) 10 SCC 367], the Court while examining the
validity of termination of the services of workmen, after
acquittal by the criminal court, where acquittal was due to lack
of evidence before the criminal court and sufficient evidence
was available before the Labour Court, held that the judgment
in Capt. M. Paul Anthony case cannot come to the rescue of the
workmen. Similarly, in the case of Airports Authority of India
v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee [2025 SCC OnLine SC 232], the
Court held as follows:
“33. All that is required on the part of
the Disciplinary Authority is that it should
examine the evidence in the disciplinary
proceedings and arrive at a reasoned
conclusion that the material placed on record
during the course of enquiry establishes the
guilt of the delinquent employee on the
principle of preponderance of probabilities.
This is precisely what was done by the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority while dealing with the case of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
16/25respondent.
34. In our considered view, the
Division Bench fell into grave error in
substituting the standard of proof required in a
criminal trial vis-a-vis the disciplinary enquiry
conducted by the employer. It is a settled
principle of law that the burden laid upon the
prosecution in a criminal trial is to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a
disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the
department is limited and it is required to prove
its case on the principle of preponderance of
probabilities.”
20. In the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is
of the opinion that the closure of the criminal case by
acceptance of final form due to lack of evidence will have no
effect on the disciplinary proceeding, inasmuch as, the acquittal
in criminal proceeding can only be taken note of while
exercising power of judicial review where charges in
departmental enquiry and criminal case are identical, evidence,
witness and circumstances are also same and where the Court in
exercise of judicial review found that the acquittal in criminal
proceeding was after full consideration of prosecution evidence
and prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge. In these
circumstances, only the court can interfere with the order passed
by the disciplinary authority where findings of the disciplinary
authority are found to be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each
case depends on its own facts. Reference can also be placed on a
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
17/25
decision rendered in the case of Ram Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
& Ors. [(2024) 1 SCC 175].
21. Now coming to the question raised by the learned
Advocate for the petitioner striking the legality of the
departmental proceeding culminated into punishment, it would
be apt to notice the memorandum of charge and the enquiry
report. Suffice it to observe that the memorandum of charge
contains the list of three witnesses, including the District
Manager, State Food Corporation, Darbhanga, the Assistant
Accounts Officer as well as the Head Assistant, State Food
Corporation, Darbhanga. The list of documents contains only
one letter issued by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga dated
09.06.2011 and another is the report of the District Manager,
SFC, Darbhanga as contained in its Memo No. 745 dated
16.07.2011. There is no whisper as to who was appointed as the
Conducting Officer and who was authorized to represent the
Corporation as Presenting Officer.
22. In the case of State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar
Sinha [(2010) 2 SCC 772] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
reminded with the settled proposition that the Enquiry Officer
acting as a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an
independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
18/25
representative of the department/disciplinary
authority/Government. Enquiry Officer should not act as a
prosecutor as well as judge. His function is to examine the
evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of
the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted
evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the said case, on being found no oral
evidence has been examined, held the documents have not been
proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to
conclude that the charges have been proved against the
respondents. It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice
that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard in any proceeding which may culminate in a punishment
being imposed on the employee.
23. Similarly, in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs
Punjab National Bank & Ors [(2009) 2 SCC 570] the Apex
Court while emphasizing the duty of the Enquiry Officer has
held and observed that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi
judicial function and thus the charges leveled against the
delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The
Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into
consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
19/25
purported evidence collected during investigation by the
Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not
be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. In that
case also the Court on being found that no witness was
examined to prove the said documents and the management
witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the
contents thereof, held that it could not have been treated as an
evidence.
24. In the case in hand, the Enquiry Officer while
returning the finding of guilt has placed reliance upon the letter
of the District Magistrate and the report of the District Manager,
SFC, Darbhanga but no witness was examined to prove the said
documents or contents thereof. The enquiry report has taken
note of various other letters/stock issuance order and the supply
register but surprisingly the copies of which are not the part of
the list of documents nor it has ever been handed over to the
petitioner. There is no whisper with regard to the role of the
Presenting Officer. Non appointment of the Presenting Officer is
a clear and serious lapse in a departmental proceeding. The
Apex Court in the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd vs
Girja Shankar Pant & Ors [(2001) 1 SCC 182] emphasizing
the object of doctrine of natural justice has held that it is not
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
20/25
only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. The
Court observed that 65 pages report submitted by the
Conducting Officer where charges against the delinquent stand
proved and the lengthy order passed by the disciplinary
authority did not find enough to sustain the order of dismissal
where the enquiry report was found to be without any basis,
who is the person who has produced the same in absence of any
Presenting Officer and the notice fixing the date of hearing.
25. It would also be worth noticing, at this stage the
decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union Of
India & Ors vs P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610], wherein
the Court while painstakingly enunciating the principle and
scope of interference with the disciplinary proceeding has held
in clear terms that in disciplinary proceeding the High Court is
not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High
Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of
the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
“(a) the enquiry is held by a competent
authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural
justice in conducting the proceedings;
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
21/25
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves
from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to
be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so
wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable
person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the
finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.”
26. In the light of the settled proposition of law when
this Court examined the enquiry report, it finds that apart from
violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the
proceedings, the authorities have allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant extraneous consideration, inasmuch as,
the finding of fact is based on no valid evidence. Once the
foundation stands demolished, the structure looses its support
and lead to collapse.
27. Now coming to the impugned order, this Court is
constrained to observe that in no circumstances, it can be said
to be a reasoned and speaking order, nonetheless there is no
discussion to the show cause explanation filed by the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
22/25
This Court feels it imperative to quote the relevant part of the
order for appreciation of its legality:
ÞJh jkenso ;kno] lgk;d¼fu0½ jkT; [kk|
fuxe] njHkaxk ds fo:) xfBr vkjksi i=] vkjksih ls izkIr
izFke ,oa f}rh; cpko i=] xokgksa dh xokgh rFkk lapkyu
inkf/kdkjh }kjk lefiZr vfnxe ds lE;d leh{kksijkUr
Jh ;kno ds fo:) nksuksa vkjksi izekf.kr ik;s x;s gSA
vr,o Jh ;kno ds fo:) foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh
lekIr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa mUgsa fuyEcu ls eqDr djrs gq,
izekf.kr vkjksiksa ds fy, fuEufyf[kr n.M fu/kkZfjr fd,
tkrs gSaAß
28. Time without number it has been reminded that the
issuance of second show cause is not a mere formality, there
must be independent application of mind and consideration of
the case shown; the word ‘consideration’ displays a process of
application of mind by noticing and dealing with the relevant
facts which includes both pros and cons. The natural justice and
its applicability shall depend on facts of each case. It cannot
mean only fulfillment of the formality for giving of a show
cause notice and acceptance of a reply. The final order must
display the application of mind to the grounds mentioned in the
show cause notice, the defece taken in reply, followed by at least
a brief analysis of the defence supported by reasons why it was
not acceptable. The giving of reasons while inflicting major
punishment is an absolutely imperative and a facet of the natural
justice. A quasi judicial authority is under obligation to record
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
23/25
reasons in support of its conclusion. Emphasizing the
importance of giving reasons, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed
Khan & Ors [(2010) 9 SCC 496] has held inter alia that
insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must
also appear to be done as well. Reasons facilitate the process of
judicial review by superior Courts.
29. Now coming to Rule 27 of the Bihar State Food
and Civil Supplies Corporation Service Conduct and
Disciplinary Conduct Rules, there is no iota or confusion that
the punishment inflicted to the petitioner is a major one and,
therefore, the procedure for dealing with the cases of
misconduct as prescribed under Rule 28 ought to be followed.
Rule 28(iii) clearly obligates that any order of the competent
authority, as authorised under the rules of the Corporation for
inflicting major punishment on the delinquent employee, shall
be passed after communicating to the employee. The charges
along with statement of imputations of misconduct/misbehavior
on which they are based along with findings of the Enquiry
Officer in writing and the major penalty which is being
contemplated against the delinquent employee. Suffice it to
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
24/25
observe that the afore noted prescription has been given a
complete go by.
30. So far the order impugned dated 08.11.2019 is
concerned, the same was confined only to the limited issue
regarding the discharge of the petitioner from criminal case and
its effect on the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding; this
issue has already been dealt with thoroughly in the foregoing
paragraphs, the same is not required to be repeated. However, it
would be suffice to observe that if the original order goes, any
subsequent order has no leg to stand.
31. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, in
the premise of the settled legal position, this Court is hereby
declared and held that the impugned orders as contained in
Memo No. 7763 dated 17.07.2014 as also the order dated
08.11.2019 as contained in Anneuxre-P/38 are unsustainable in
law and is accordingly set aside.
32. The writ petition stands allowed.
33. The Corporation is directed to ensure all the
consequential benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date
of his suspension, preferably within a period of three months
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
34. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4596 of 2020 dt.18-06-2025
25/25
35. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR N.A. CAV DATE 21.04.2025 Uploading Date 21 .06.2025 Transmission Date N.A.