Patna High Court
Ranjan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 1 July, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6105 of 2022
======================================================
Ranjan Kumar, Son of Late Pramod Kumar Sinha, Resident of Ashok Nagar,
P.O.- Kosi College, P.S. and District- Khagaria (Bihar), Presently Posted as
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Unit (Bihar), P.O. and
P.S. Shastri Nagar, District-Patna (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Home, Main Secretariat, Patna-800015.
2. The Special Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Main Secretariat,
Patna-800015.
3. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Sardar Patel Bhawan,
Patna-800001.
4. The Additional Director Genral of Police (Head Quarters), Sardar Patel
Bhawan, Patna-800001.
5. The Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Sardar Patel Bhawan,
Patna-800001.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Range, District- Munger,
Bihar.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Munger.
8. The Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Unit, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kumar, GP- 4
Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP- 4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-07-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made
to an order dated 25.02.2020, as contained in Memo No. 2/M2-
70-06/2013
Home (Police)/1978, issued under the signature of
Special Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Home
(Police), whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
2/25
punishment of withholding of three annual increments with
cumulative effect. The petitioner further sought quashing of the
order as contained in Memo No.2/Police-70-06/2013 Home
(Police)/8509 dated 14.12.2020, whereby the review preferred
against the order of punishment came to be rejected.
3. The petitioner was posted as Sub-Divisional
Police Officer, Jamalpur, when an incident occurred in 2011
involving indiscriminate firing. Vide Letter No. 1992, dated
05.06.2013, the Inspector General (Headquarters), Bihar, Patna,
requested the Home Department to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner for allegedly assisting the
accused from one group, disobeying superior officers, and
restraining subordinates from arresting the accused. A Memo of
Charge dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure-P/12) was issued with three
charges and a list of documents, but no witness list. The
petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 17.11.2014 (Annexure-
P/16). No progress occurred for three years, prompting the
petitioner to request closure of proceedings vide letters dated
14.11.2017 (to ADG HQ) and 31.07.2018 (to DGP Bihar). No
action followed. On 07.01.2019, the Inquiry Officer requested
the appointment of a Presenting Officer. Post appointment, the
petitioner was asked to produce and verify documents through
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
3/25
witnesses. Two constables from the offices of the IG, Bhagalpur,
and SP, Munger, were produced by the Presenting Officer as
witnesses. The petitioner submitted his defence statement on
10.06.2019. The Presenting Officer was directed to respond. The
Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 17.07.2019 (Annexure-
P/29), finding Charge nos. 1 and 2 proved, while Charge no. 3
was not proved.
4. On receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner
was served with the second show-cause along with the enquiry
report on 13.08.2019. The petitioner immediately submitted his
reply to the second show-cause. However, it did not find any
favour and the impugned order of punishment came to be passed
on 25.02.2020 by the respondent no.2.
5. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Review,
however, the same came to be rejected vide order dated
14.12.2020. Both the orders, aforenoted, are challenged in the
present writ petition.
6. Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned Advocate for the
petitioner assailing the impugned orders primarily questioned
the legality of the Memo of charge and submitted that
admittedly there had been no list of witnesses to bring home the
charges and thus violating the Rules 17(4) and 17 (14) of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
4/25
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal)
Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules, 2005’).
In absence of the witnesses to prove the charges, the natural
corollary is the finding of the enquiry officer is based on no
evidence. Moreover, the SHO, who was the most important
witness to prove the charge no.1, his deposition has not been
recorded. Similarly, the Superintendent of Police, Munger and
the Investigating officer, who were the most important witnesses
to prove charge no.2, they were never produced as witness in the
departmental proceeding. The petitioner on account of non-
production of witnesses got no opportunity to cross-examine
them. The two witnesses, who were produced as the witnesses
were only formal witness and deposed to verify the documents,
yet the contents of the document not proved by any witness. The
entire departmental proceeding was conducted on five dates.
Moreover, the Presenting Officer failed to discharge his role to
bring the evidence and prove the charges. All the more, he was
absent on three days and only completed the formality without
giving any comment.
7. Referring to the enquiry report, Mr. Siddhartha
Prasad, further contended that when the Presenting Officer, who
had to prosecute did not discharge his duties. It is obvious that
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
5/25
enquiry officer stepped into the shoes of the Presenting Officer
and acted on behalf of the department and returned the findings,
which is legally not sustainable. The charge nos. 1 and 2, which
are said to have been proved are based on no evidence and in
fact the onus has been erroneously shifted to the petitioner to
prove his innocence. The impugned orders are perfunctory.
There is no deliberation or discussion of the written defence and
the grounds taken in the reply to the second show-cause and
thus there is no application of independent mind and the orders
are completely non-speaking is the contention of the learned
Advocate for the petitioner.
8. Placing reliance upon the decision rendered in
the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh,
[SLP(C) No.29758 of 2018], it is contended that recording of
evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a
major punishment is mandatory. Since no oral evidence has
been examined 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. In
Satyendra Singh (supra), the Apex Court has emphasized and
reiterated the well settled legal proposition laid down in the case
of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others,
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
6/25
reported in, (2009) 2 SCC 570 as well State of U.P. & Ors. Vs.
Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in, (2010) 2 SCC 772, while
highlighting the duty of the enquiry officer.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned
Advocate for the State dispelling the aforenoted contentions has
urged that Praptra ‘Ka’ issued by the General and
Administration Department, Government of Bihar was revisited
and a fresh memo of charge along with list of evidences and
exhibits against the petitioner under Rule 17(3)(4) of the CCA
Rules, 2005 was served upon him and directed to submit a
written statement of defence.
10. Under the Memo of Charge, the petitioner
submitted his written statement of defence. The Police
Headquarters, vide Letter No. 2341 dated 04.10.2018, opined
that the petitioner failed to take effective steps regarding raid,
search, and preventive action against the accused involved in the
firing incident. The matter was examined based on the
allegations, the petitioner’s defence, the opinion of the Police
Headquarters, and materials on record. The departmental
proceeding was accordingly continued, and the Conducting
Officer submitted a finding of guilt. Charges of negligence,
dereliction of duty, arbitrariness, and dubious conduct tarnishing
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
7/25
the police force’s image were proven. Based on this, a second
show-cause notice was issued. The petitioner’s reply was found
unsatisfactory, resulting in the impugned order of punishment,
withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect.
11. It is specifically contended that in conducting
the departmental proceeding, Rules and procedures have been
strictly followed and the petitioner was accorded sufficient
opportunity to place his defence, but he failed to produce any
clinching evidence to refute the allegation.
12. Reliance has also been placed on decisions
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara
Chand Vyas vs. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority & Ors.,
reported in, (1997) 4 SCC 565, Director General, Indian
Council of Medical Research & Ors. Vs. Dr. Anil Kumar
Ghosh & Anr., reported in, (1998) 7 SCC 97. Further reliance
has been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Anuj Kumar Singh Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.,
reported in, 2024 (2) PLJR 30. (CWJC No. 6409 of 2016).
13. This Court has meticulously heard the learned
Advocate for the respective parties and perused the materials
available on record. Before delving into the merit of this case, it
would be prudent to remind that the scope of judicial review is
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
8/25
limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the
decision. Caution has been rendered that the court would not go
into the correctness of the choice made by the disciplinary
authority/administrator open to him and should not substitute its
decision to that of the disciplinary authority/administrator. The
above mentioned legal proposition has been emphasized since
the decision of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. Vs.
Wednesbury Corporation, reported in (1948) 1 King’s Bench
223. The Apex Court summarizing the scope of interference in a
disciplinary proceeding, while exercising power under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution, in the case of Union of India
& Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 has
succinctly enumerated the eventuality wherein the court can
interfere any disciplinary proceeding, which are being quoted
hereinbelow:
“12. Despite the well-settled position,
it is painfully disturbing to note that the High
Court has acted as an appellate authority in the
disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the
evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding
on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary
authority and was also endorsed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary
proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act
as a second court of first appeal. The High Court,
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
9/25in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into
reappreciation 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;
(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.”
14. As regards the power of the High Court to
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
10/25
reappraise the facts, it cannot be said that the same is completely
impermissible under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
However, there must be a level of infirmity greater than
ordinary in a tribunal’s order, which is facing judicial scrutiny
before the High Court, to justify interference, as has been held
by the Apex Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. A. S.
Raghavendra, reported in (2024) 6 SCC 418.
15. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhupendra
Singh, reported in, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908, the Apex Court
reiterating the settled legal position propounded in the case of
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, reported in
AIR 1963 SC 1723, as also in the case of State of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao, reported in (1975) 2
SCC 557 and State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma, reported
in, (1996) 3 SCC 364 has observed that in a case where a fair
opportunity was given to the delinquent to present his version
on account of minor deficiencies in the process, if the same have
not caused prejudice to the respondents to the extent warranting
judicial interdiction and the charges were proved, based upon
the legal evidence, the order of dismissal should not interfere
normally.
16. In the aforementioned settled legal position, now
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
11/25
this Court will examine the legality of the impugned order as to
whether it warrants interference, in the facts of the present case.
Withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect,
indisputably falls within the category of major punishment. Rule
17 of the CCA Rules, 2005 prescribed the Procedure for
imposing major penalties. Rule 17(3) thereof cast an obligation
on the disciplinary authority to draw charge against a
delinquent/government servant or cause it to be drawn up
against the official delinquent. It is specifically ruled that the
substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour has
a definite and distinct article of charge. In support of each
charge, the statement of all relevant facts, including a list of
such document by which, and a list of such witnesses by whom,
the articles of charges are sustained in the mandate of Rule
17(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005.
17. Rule 17(14) clearly prescribes that on the date
fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by
which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be
produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The
witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting
Officer and cross-examined by or on behalf of the Government
Servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
12/25
the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-
examined, but not on any new matter, without the leave of the
inquiring authority. The inquiring authority is also empowered
to put such questions to the witnesses, as it thinks fit. From the
conjoint reading of all the aforementioned, prima facie,
prescriptions of CCA Rules, 2005 it would be evident that the
legislation has interfered and emphasized the obligation upon
the disciplinary authority to produce the document and the
witnesses of each article of charge is proposed to be sustained.
18. In the light of the statutory prescriptions noted
hereinabove, now coming to the memo of charge, the copy of
which is placed on record as Annexure-P/12. The list of
documents contains four letters issued by different authorities.
However, admittedly there is no list of witnesses. The charges in
sum and substance alleged against the delinquent with regard to
dereliction of duty and laxity in investigation; and engaging in
acts, which aimed at and facilitated holding the accused persons,
in the opinion of this Court, cannot sustain only on documentary
evidence, rather the same is to be proved by oral evidence.
Moreover, even the documentary evidence, which has been
produced during the course of investigation, none of the
witnesses have come forward to prove the content thereof. It has
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
13/25
rightly been urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner
that the SHO of the concerned police station was the relevant
witness to prove the charge no.1, his deposition has not even
been recorded. Similarly, the Superintendent of Police, Munger
and the investigating officer of the questioned police station
case, their depositions have not been recorded by the
Conducting officer. This Court also finds substance in the
submission that in the case in hand, the onus to prove the charge
has been erroneously shifted to the petitioner. The Court on
innumerable occasion has emphasized and underscore that a
finding can be arrived at by the enquiry officer, if there is some
evidence on record. The evidence must be admissible evidence
and non-else.
19. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the Apex
Court held that mere production of a document is not enough.
Contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by
examining the witnesses. The Court further observed that since
a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The
Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
14/25
by the parties. The 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. No witness was examined to prove the said
documents. Hence, the Court finally observed that mere
tendering of the documents would not suffice and the reliance
placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR could not have been
treated as evidence.
20. Similarly, in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha
(supra), the Court cautioned that even an ex-parte enquiry, it is
the duty of the enquiry officer to examine the evidence
presented by the department to find out whether the unrebutted
evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. It
would be prudent to encapsulate the relevant extract of the
decision, which shall answer and cover the issue involved
herein:
“28. An inquiry officer acting in a
quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an
independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to
be a representative of the
department/disciplinary authority/Government.
His function is to examine the evidence
presented by the Department, even in the
absence of the delinquent official to see as to
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
15/25whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved. In the present
case the aforesaid procedure has not been
observed. Since no oral evidence has been
examined 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.
29. Apart from the above, by virtue of
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the
departmental enquiry had to be conducted in
accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is
a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice
that an employee be given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in any proceedings
which may culminate in punishment being
imposed on the employee.”
21. In the case of Satyendra Singh (supra), the two
judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterating the
aforenoted settled legal position in identical circumstances on
being found that no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by
the department in support of the charges, set aside the order of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
whereby punishment inflicted upon the delinquent was
sustained. The Apex Court held that the High Court fell into
grave error of law while interfering in the well-reasoned
judgment rendered by the Tribunal whereby imposing penalty
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
16/25
upon the appellant by holding that the inquiry proceedings
conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable
with major penalty, were held to be totally vitiated and non-est
in the eyes of law in absence of any oral evidence.
22. To test the legality of the enquiry report, it would
be pertinent to remind and reinforce the position of an enquiry
officer, who is acting as a quasi judicial authority. The enquiry
officer is an independent adjudicator and is not supposed to be a
representative of the department/disciplinary authority/
Government. It is trite that justice is not to be done, but is
manifestly seen to be done. The enquiry, which may lead to
major penalty caution is required. This Court is also conscious
of the fact that in the subjected departmental proceeding, though
the Presenting officer was appointed, belatedly; but the enquiry
report does not answer as to whether he followed the necessary
requirement of the prescriptions and the statutory rule as
incorporated in Rule 17(5)(c) of CCA Rules, 2005.
23. The significance of appointment of Presenting
Officer has also been admitted by the respondent authorities,
which led to issuance of Memo No. 235 dated 20.12.2017,
which clearly postulates the role of Presenting officer. This
Court has also taken cognizance of this letter in the case of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
17/25
Manoj Kumar Ram Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in,
2025 (2) PLJR 561.
24. Bare perusal of the enquiry report, this Court finds
that the Presenting officer has completely failed to discharge his
duty and only opined that all the issues relating to charges shall
be considered in the enquiry, as it is a quasi judicial proceeding,
save and except there is nothing on record. Neither he produced
any witness to support the charges nor he made any effort to
bring the charges home even by producing any clinching
admissible documentary evidence. The enquiry officer also
failed in discharging its duty when he returned the finding of
guilt by holding; “since the delinquent has only denied the
charges, but failed to produce any documentary evidence, hence
the charges stood proved. Well settled that it is the prosecution/
department who is obliged to bring the charges home and not
the accused/delinquent.
25. In the case in hand, the onus has wrongly been
shifted to the delinquent to prove the charges. The enquiry
report concluded by holding two of the charges, out of three,
stand proved; but having gone through the enquiry report it does
not stand to the reason as to on what basis the charges came to
be proved without their being any legal admissible evidences.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
18/25
Once this Court finds that the Presenting officer has failed to
discharge his duty and thus the Conducting officer has acted
beyond his jurisdiction, in the opinion, the entire enquiry
vitiates. Moreover, the charge nos. 1 and 2, which are stated to
have been proved are not based upon any admissible legal
evidence, hence the finding of the enquiry officer cannot sustain
in the eyes of law.
26. Before coming to the impugned orders, this Court
feels it apt and proper to discuss the applicability of the
decisions referred by the learned Advocate for the State.
27. In the case of Tara Chand Vyas (supra) the
charges against the delinquent was with regard to dereliction in
the performance of the duties in making payment of loans
without ensuring supply of implements to the loanees and
deposit of adequate security from the dealers as a consequence
of which the respondent-Bank was put to loss. The plea taken by
the learned counsel for the delinquent that for proof of the
charges none of the witnesses was examined nor any
opportunity was given to cross-examine them and thus the entire
enquiry was vitiated, was turned down by the Apex Court on the
ground that the entire charges were based upon the documentary
evidence which had already been part of the record and copies
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
19/25
thereof had been supplied to the petitioner.
28. In Dr. Anil Kumar Ghosh‘s case, the delinquent, a
senior officer at the National Institute of Cholera and Enteric
Diseases, had wrongfully claimed HRA for over ten years,
triggering an internal audit. Upon finding a prima facie case,
departmental proceedings were initiated, leading to his removal
from service. He challenged the order before the Calcutta High
Court, where the Single Judge held the enquiry was vitiated due
to a violation of natural justice and quashed the order. The
Division Bench upheld this view. However, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reversed the finding, observing that the High
Court’s view holding no misconduct even if charges were true,
was shocking, especially as the officer had gained from public
funds using false certificates. The Apex Court found no
violation of natural justice. Though no witness list was initially
provided, the delinquent himself later requested examination of
municipal officials who had issued the HRA certificates. The
Court noted the department had submitted those very certificates
as official documents, and since their authenticity was not
disputed, there was no need to examine the officials. Thus, the
charges were based on undisputed documentary evidence, and
the delinquent’s objection that witnesses were not produced to
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
20/25
prove their contents was found unsustainable.
29. There is no confrontation to the settled legal
position, as has been held in the case of Tara Chand Vyas and
Dr. Anil Kumar Ghosh (supra), which has been duly reiterated
and re-affirmed by the learned coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Anuj Kumar Singh Yadav (supra) that the
departmental enquiries are not like trials being conducted by the
Civil Courts and only documentary evidence, copies whereof
have already been supplied to the delinquent can definitely be
the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer/disciplinary
authority. It is equally a well settled law that when the
genuineness of the documents do not question by the delinquent,
there is no need to examine witnesses in support thereof.
30. In the case of Anuj Kumar Singh Yadav (supra),
the delinquent was subjected to punishment dismissal after
having found the charges proved during the course of enquiry,
however in the said case the Court found that not only the
enquiry has been held by the competent authority and in
accordance with the procedure established by law but the
enquiry officer has also found sufficient evidence to arrive at a
finding of guilt of the petitioner. In the said case, neither any
infirmity was found in the procedure nor any order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
21/25
punishment, hence the Court did not interfere with the
conclusion of the disciplinary authority. The Court while
coming to the conclusion has succinctly observed that the plea
about documents having not been supplied to the petitioner and
the petitioner having not been granted opportunity to examine
witnesses has failed in absence of any proof to the effect that he
had made any application with regard to the same and what
prejudice has been caused to him in case documents had not
been made available to him; hence the petitioner cannot derive
any benefit on this score.
31. The position is admitted in the case in hand that
the charges levelled against the petitioner are not based on
documentary evidence, rather the same are mandatorily required
to be proved through oral evidence; all the more even the
department has failed to prove the contents of the documents by
producing any witnesses. With due regard in the opinion of this
Court, the judgments referred hereinabove by the learned
Advocate for the State are not applicable in the facts of the
present case.
32. Now coming to the impugned order (Annexure-
33), this Court finds that there is no discussion and deliberation
to the reply to the second show-cause notice before inflicting the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
22/25
punishment. The impugned order is only based upon the enquiry
report, which is held to be not sustainable. The order passed by
the disciplinary authority is wholly cryptic and non-speaking
and unreasoned. This Court thinks it necessary to quote the
relevant extract of the impugned order, which would fortify the
aforenoted conclusion of this Court.
“5. lapkyu inkf/kdkjh }kjk lefiZr tkap
izfrosnu ,oa vipkjh ls izkIr cpko vfHkdFku rFkk fcgkj
yksd lsok vk;ksx ls izkIr ijke”kZ ds leh{kksijkar izekf.kr
vkjksi vR;ar xaHkhj izd`fr gksus ds dkj.k fcgkj ljdkjh lsod
¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh 2005 ds fu;e 14
¼I½ ,o ¼V½ ds rgr 03 ¼rhu½ osruo`f);kW¡ lap;h izHkko ls
jksdus dk n.M vf/kjksfir fd;k tkrk gSA”
33. It is well settled proposition of law that the
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 disallowed irrelevant aspects.
In the case of M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Masood
Ahmed Khan & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Court
underscore the importance of recording of reasons by holding
that a quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of
its conclusions as it operates a valid restraint on any possible
arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
23/25
administrative power.
34. This Court is conscious of the fact that in a
disciplinary proceeding, the charges are proved on the basis of
the preponderance of probabilities and no strict proof of
evidence is required, but even under such principle, there must
be semblance of preponderance of probabilities based upon
some legal evidence.
35. In the present case, there is no admissible
evidence to support the charges. 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 held to be vesting of arbitrary and
uncanalised powers in the authority. In a given situation if the
authority concerned finds the cause 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.
In the case of Kems Services Private Limited Vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors., reported in, 2014(1) PLJR 622 while making the
aforenoted observation the learned Division Bench has held that
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
24/25
giving of reasons in such a situation is an absolute imperative
and a facet of natural justice.
36. Now coming to the impugned order as
contained in Memo No.2/Police-70-06/2013 Home
(Police)/8509 dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-34) passed by the
Reviewing authority, this Court, prima facie, finds that the same
suffers from serious illegality, as the Reviewing authority has
committed similar mistake while not deliberating and discussing
any of the grounds raised by the petitioner and/or the petitioner
would be able to demonstrate there is some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record.
37. In view of the discussions made hereinabove,
this Court finds that the impugned orders as contained in Memo
No. 2/M2-70-06/2013 Home (Police)/1978 dated 25.02.2020
(Annexure-33) and Memo No.2/Police-70-06/2013 Home
(Police)/8509 dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-34) are wholly
unsustainable in law and thus hereby set aside.
38. On account of setting aside the impugned
orders, the consequences shall follow in accordance with law;
the admissible benefits shall be restored to the petitioner
preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6105 of 2022 dt.01-07-2025
25/25
39. The parties shall bear their own costs.
40. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 03.07.2025 Transmission Date NA