Patna High Court
Ravi Ranjan Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Bihar on 3 March, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16745 of 2021
======================================================
Ravi Ranjan Kumar Gupta, S/o Nathuni Parsad, R/o Village-Fatehpur, P.S.-
Jogapatti, District-West Champaran, Bihar, at Present posted as the Sub
Divisional Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Barh, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Bihar.
5. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga, Bihar.
6. The Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Senior Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sanket, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Date : 03-03-2025
This Court has heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned
Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned
Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned
Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated
03.07.2017
as contained in Memo No. 8003 dated 04.07.2017
issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, General
Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
2/24
(respondent no.6), whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with
the punishment of censure for the year 2012-13 and withholding
of one increment of pay without cumulative effect. The
petitioner also sought quashing of the order dated 09.07.2021
issued by the respondent no.6, by which the review preferred by
him in terms of Rule 24(2) of the Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal Rules), 2005 (for brevity
‘the Rules, 2005’) came to be rejected.
3. The brief facts, which led to the filing of the present
writ petition, are that the petitioner joined the Bihar
Administrative Service long back in the year 2000. While the
petitioner was posted as Deputy Collector Land Reforms
(DCLR), Sadar, Darbhanga, the District Magistrate, Darbhanga
through his Memo No. 643 dated 26.02.2013 issued a public
notice for “Settlement of Sairats” for the financial year 2013-14
at district, sub-division and block level within the district of
Darbhanga. The aforesaid settlement was to be done through
open tender on 12.03.2013, 19.03.2013 and 25.03.2013. The
petitioner being the DCLR, Sadar Darbhanga, was also directed
with other officials to ensure that the settlement of Sairats must
be done in the blocks falling under his jurisdiction on stipulated
dates; direction was also issued to publicize this event at mass
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
3/24
level. Altogether, 65 Sairats situated under three sub-divisions of
Darbhanga district, namely, Darbhanga Sadar, Biraul and
Benipur were directed to be settled. The petitioner was to ensure
the settlement of 24 Sairats falling under the Darbhanga Sadar.
In consequence to the directives as contained in Memo No. 643
dated 26.02.2013, total 12 Sairats were settled by the petitioner,
out of which 5 Sairats were having minimum fixed value of
more than Rs.50,000/-. Subsequent to the settlement in the
month of July, 2013, the petitioner was transferred to
Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur.
4. In the meantime, based upon the Letter no. 1444
dated 28.12.2013 issued by the Commissioner, Darbhanga
Division, addressed to the Principal Secretary, General
Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna,
showing alleged illegality in the settlement of Gausha Ghat
Mela Sairat, a show-cause notice as contained in Letter no. 2323
dated 18.02.2014 was served upon the petitioner by which he
was directed to submit his explanation. Pursuant thereto, the
petitioner submitted his reply with a categorical averment that
no illegality has been committed in the settlement of Sairats in
question. The explanation of the petitioner did not find favour
and vide Letter no. 6749 dated 12.05.2016, the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
4/24
served with ‘Prapatra K’ along with other documents. In
response to the notice containing “Prapatra K’, the petitioner
submitted his detailed reply on 30.05.2016 rebutted the
allegation, inter alia, that the charges levelled against him are
unfounded, based upon wholly incorrect facts. However, the
explanation/reply of the petitioner did not persuade the
disciplinary authority and finally the impugned order of
punishment came be to be passed on 03.07.2017. Against the
order of punishment dated 03.07.2017 (Annexure-1), the
petitioner preferred review application on 19.03.2021 in terms
of the provisions of Rule 24(2) of the Rules, 2005. However, it
came to be rejected being barred by limitation.
5. Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Advocate for
the petitioner, assailing the impugned order has taken this Court
through relevant documents and firstly drawn the attention of
this Court to Memo No. 643 dated 26.02.2013 issued by the
District Magistrate, Darbhanga, through which “Settlement of
Sairats” was directed to be settled in three sub-divisions of the
district of Darbhanga. Referring thereto, it is contended that
there was a direction to the District Public Relation Officer,
Darbhanga to get the publication of public notice in two daily Hindi
news papers done for settlement of Sairats. Further, the DCLR
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
5/24
was directed to ensure that the settlement of Sairats must be
done on the stipulated dates and, for the said purpose, wide
publication was also to be done. The petitioner being the DCLR,
Darbhanga was only concerned with the settlement of 24 Sairats
falling under the sub-division of Darbhanga Sadar. Out of 24
Sairats, 16 Sairats were having minimum fixed value of Rs.
50,000/-. Before the settlement, in pursuant to the Memo No.
643 dated 26.02.2013, the petitioner issued Letter no. 407 dated
01.03.2013 informing all the Circle Officers of different Circles
of Darbhanga Sadar to widely publicize about the scheduled
programme for settlement of Sairats. The petitioner also got the
public notice, as contained in Memo No. 643, displayed at the
notice board of his office. On the scheduled date of 12.03.2013,
7 Sairats were settled through open tender, out of which 3
Sairats were having minimum fixed value of above Rs.50,000/-.
Further on 19.03.2013, a total number of 5 Sairats were having
the minimum reserved value of about Rs. 50,000/-. On the fixed
day on 25.03.2013, no bidder turned up, so none of the Sairats
could be settled. Thus, the total 12 Sairats were settled by the
petitioner, out of which, 5 Sairats were having the minimum
fixed value of more than Rs.50,000/-.
6. Adverting the aforesaid facts, learned Senior
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
6/24
Advocate for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of
this Court to the Letter no. 1444 dated 28.12.2013 issued by the
Commissioner, Darbhanga Division to the Principal Secretary,
General Administrative Department, through which it has been
informed, inter alia, that the settlement of altogether 20 Sairats
having the minimum reserved value of above Rs.50,000/- took
place through open bid without publication of the general notice
in the two daily Hindi news papers, contrary to the guidelines
and the letters issued by the department, which led to the
institution of C.W.J.C. No. 14491 of 2013 [Uma Dhar Yadav
v. The State of Bihar and Others], questioning the legality of
the settlement before the Hon’ble Court. This letter led to
issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner which was
elaborately responded, referring to the letter contained in Memo
No. 643 dated 26.02.2013 that for publication of the general
notice in two daily Hindi news papers, the direction and
responsibility was fastened with the District Public Relation
Officer, Darbhanga and the petitioner was only directed to
ensure publicizing about the scheduled programme for
settlement of Sairats, which was duly ensured by the petitioner.
Moreover, information with respect to the settlement which took
place on 12.03.2013 and 19.03.2013 was duly forwarded to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
7/24
District Magistrate on the date of settlement itself in compliance
with the Memo No. 643 dated 26.02.2013. Notwithstanding the
detailed explanation clarifying the entire position; the petitioner
was served with the “Prapatra K’ for holding of major
departmental enquiry along with such documents by which the
articles of charges are proposed to be sustained. Bare perusal of
the “Prapatra K” dated 11.05.2016, the imputation levelled
against the petitioner, prima facie, based upon an incorrect
factual facts that the petitioner being the DCLR, Darbhanga has
settled 16 Sairats, exceeding his jurisdiction having the
minimum reserved value of more than Rs.50,000/- without
publicizing the notice for settlement in two daily Hindi news
papers.
7. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, with
reference to the aforesaid facts, has contended that the petitioner
had not settled 16 Sairats for the financial year 2013-14, which
had minimum reserved value for more than Rs.50,000/- and thus
the acts which were not even attributable to the petitioner have
made part of the “Prapatra K’. The aforesaid facts brought to the
knowledge of the disciplinary authority and a detailed
explanation with reference to the Memo No. 643 dated
26.02.2013 vis-a-vis the responsibility of the petitioner in
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
8/24
causing the settlement of Sairats, nonetheless, the impugned
order came to be passed without any enquiry, much less required
under Rules, 2005, especially incorporated under Rule 17
thereof. It is urged that none of the mandatory prescriptions as
prescribed for major departmental enquiry under Rule 17 of the
Rules, 2005 was followed. The impugned order came to be
passed without appointing the Enquiry Officer and without any
enquiry. Neither there is any Presenting Officer nor even the
petitioner has been accorded the opportunity of personal
hearing. Without producing the oral and documentary evidence
by the Presenting Officer on behalf of the Government to prove
the charges against the petitioner, the charges allegedly held to
be proved; there is no examination of any witness, all the more,
Letter no. 70 dated 01.03.2013 and Letter no. 2671 dated
02.12.2013, which have been obtained by the petitioner under
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act, 2005’)
revealed that the publication of notice in two daily newspapers
could not be done due to the fault on the part of the office of the
Director Information and Public Relations Department,
Government of Bihar. Learned Senior Advocate, strenously
argued that while issuing the impugned order, the respondents
have not adhered to the mandatory provisions of Rule, 18(5) of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
9/24
the Rules, 2005 and once the departmental proceeding was
initiated under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005 for imposing major
punishment, the respondent authorities cannot be allowed to
render a complete go by to the mandatory prescriptions as
provided under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005; even though, later
on, minor punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner. It is
lastly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in
the eyes of law as it suffers from manifest non-consideration of
the issues raised by the petitioner, apart from the same being
cryptic, no reason has been assigned. The impugned order
passed by the reviewing authority whereby the review
application filed by the petitioner is held to be time barred; it
has castigating effect, inasmuch as the petitioner has not been
given promotion against the post of Deputy Secretary whereas
the persons junior to him, have already been given promotion to
the post of Deputy Secretary, apart from not extending the 1 st
and 2nd MACP with effect from the date from which the
petitioner was otherwise eligible. Hence, the reviewing
authority ought to consider the review application on merit(s).
To support the aforesaid contentions, reliance has also been
placed on the various decisions of this Court rendered by the
learned Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Ashok
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
10/24
Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar and Others [L.P.A. No.
861 of 2019], Manoranjan Singh v. The State of Bihar and
Others [L.P.A. No. 706 of 2019] and Satyendra Kumar v.
The State of Bihar and Others [L.P.A. No. 1326 of 2019].
8. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Advocate for the State,
dispelling the afore-noted contentions has vehemently opposed
the writ petition on account of the delay and laches on the part
of the petitioner. It is contended that the impugned order of
punishment was passed way back on 03.07.2017 but the review
application under Rule 24(2) of the Rules, 2005 came to be
preferred almost about four years. In fact, the review application
was nothing but a move to get the delay condoned and to move
this Court; moreover the law does not permit a belated resort to
the extraordinary remedy. Delay or laches is one of the factors,
which may lead to refusal to invoke the extraordinary powers of
the High Court, if the delay has not been explained properly.
Reliance has also been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as well as of this Court in the cases of P.
Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1975) 1 SCC 152]
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri and Others
[(2015 (4) PLJR (SC) 480], Surajdeo Lal v. State of Bihar
[2015 (2) PLJR 793] and Nageshwar Singh v. Union of India
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
11/24
[2015(4) PLJR 935].
9. Referring to the averments made in the counter
affidavit, learned Advocate for the State further contended that
settlement of Sairats of minimum reserved value of more than
Rs. 50,000/- was to be done only after publication of notice in
two daily Hindi newspapers in terms with the provisions laid
down in the Government letter issued time to time by the
Revenue and Land Reforms Department. Despite knowing the
aforesaid facts, the settlement of Sairats, as admitted by the
petitioner which have minimum reserved value of more than
Rs.50,000/- clearly proves the charges levelled against the
petitioner. Moreover, the impugned punishment is minor in
nature and thus the statutory prescriptions as provided under
Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005 is/are not applicable. The petitioner
has been offered ample opportunity and all his
explanations/replies were duly considered before inflicting the
punishment.
10. Before coming to the merit(s) of this case, it
would be apt and proper to deal with the preliminary objection
raised by the learned Advocate for the State in respect to the
delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this
Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
12/24
11. The issue regarding delay and laches had immense
significance and if the Court while exercising the extraordinary
writ jurisdiction finds that the claims raised are stale in nature
and the delay is unexplained on the part of the litigant, it
deserve to be thrown overboard at the very threshold, is the
settled legal position.
12. In the case of City and Industrial Development
Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others
[(2009) 1 SCC 168], the Apex Court has cautioned that while
dealing upon the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, is duty bound to consider whether “(a)
adjudication of writ petition involves in complex of disputed
question of fact and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals of materials facts;(c) the petitioner has
any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the
dispute; (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of
unexplained delay and laches;(e) ex facie barred by any laws of
limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by
any valid law; and host of other factors.”
13. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is
borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
13/24
if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the
applicant to assert his right has taken in conjunction with the
lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the
opposite party. The High Court may refuse to invoke its
extraordinary power in an appropriate case, is the observation of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power
Corporation Limited through its Chairman and Managing
Director and Another v. K. Thangappan and Another
[(2006) 4 SCC 322].
14. As a Constitutional Court, it has a duty to protect
the rights of the citizen but simultaneously it is to keep itself
alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person,
without adequate reason, approaches the Court at his own
leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to
scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be
entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity
[vide Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage
Board and Others v. T.T. Murli Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108].
15. The Hon’ble Suprme Court in the case of Union
of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648],
while discussing the issue of delay and laches as summarized
that service matters claimed, normally are rejected either on
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
14/24
limitation where limitation period is prescribed or on the ground
of delay/laches where there is no limitation. However, an
exception to this principle enunciated that the cases of
continuing wrong which can be entertained despite delay with a
clear caution that this exception does not apply where interest of
third party, as in the case of seniority or promotion are affected.
The Hon’ble court made it clear that where the service related
claim is based on for wrong continuing, relief can be granted
even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to
the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such
continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury.
16. In the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others
v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and
Others [(2013) 1 SCC 353], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
ruled that “delay and laches is adopted as a mode of discretion
to decline exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. The Court is
required to exercise judicial discretion. The said discretion is
dependent on facts and circumstances of the cases. Delay and
laches is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion. It is not
an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors,
continuity of cause of action, etc. That apart, if whole thing
shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
15/24
the discretion more so, when no third party interest is involved.
Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the doctrine of delay
and laches as the same is not a constitutional limitation, the
cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly
shocks judicial conscience”. And again:- No hard and fast rule
can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to
exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after
considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion
must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that
the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay
should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances
justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest,
cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When
substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted
against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to
be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested
right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate
delay. The court should not harm innocent parties if their rights
have in fact emerged, by delay on the part of the Petitioners.”
17. Having carefully gone through the afore-noted
rulings, there is no difficulty to summarize that if any wrong gives a
continuing source of injury; rendering cause of action in continuity
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
16/24
and there are mitigating circumstances, shocking the judicial
conscience; more so, when no third party right is created during
the interregnum period, there is no impediment to exercise the
discretion judiciously and reasonable; keeping in mind the
doctrine of delay and laches cannot put any fetter to the power
envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
18. Now coming to the case in hand, indisputably, the
impugned order came to be passed way back on 04.07.2017 and
the petitioner did not assail the same till the punishment affected
the right of the petitioner in getting the benefit of 1 st and 2nd
MACP as well as promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary.
Though this Court is of the view that there is admitted delay and
laches on the part of the petitioner but considering the cascading
effect on his promotional avenues and extending the benefit of
1st and 2nd MACP with effect from the date from which the
petitioner is otherwise eligible, which has certainly a continuing
source of injury qua the impugned order, which is manifestly
illegal and non est in the eyes of law, this Court finds it a fit case
to exercise its prerogative writ jurisdiction for the ends of
justice.
19. From the materials available on record, it clearly
reveal that the memo of charge was completely based upon
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
17/24
incorrect facts, alleging settlement of 16 Sairats, which do not
have the minimum reserved value of more than Rs. 50,000/-, out
of 65 Sairats for the financial year 2013-14; although the
petitioner being DCLR, Darbhanga Sadar was concerned with
only 12 Sairats, which were settled by him on 12.03.2013 and
19.03.2013 and out of which only 5 Sairats were having the
minimum fixed value of more than Rs. 50,000/-. Based upon
such incorrect charges, which was duly refuted by the petitioner
in his show-cause reply, the finding of the disciplinary authority
in no circumstances, sustained in law as well as on facts. Memo
No. 643 dated 26.02.2013, which is made the very basis to
prove the charges easily demonstrates that publication of
general notice in two daily Hindi newspapers was attributed to
the District Public Relation Officer, Darbhanga. All the DCLR
of different sub-divisions of the district of Darbhanga were
specifically directed to ensure settlement of Sairats on the date
fixed by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga and for the said
purpose, wider publication was to be done. This fact has also
been corroborated by the letters as contained in Annexure-13
series obtained under the Act, 2005 to the effect that notice
could not be published in the daily newspapers by the
Department of Information and Public Relation, due to
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
18/24
procedural delay.
20. Once, a departmental proceeding is initiated with
the issuance of the memo of charge, which clearly talks about
‘major enquiry’, hence, even for the purposes of inflicting minor
punishment, Rule 18 of the Rules, 2005 cannot be given a go by.
21. It would be worth benefiting to quote Rule 18 of
the Rules, 2005 hereunder:-
“18. Action on the inquiry report-
(1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not
itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be
recorded by it in writing, may remit the case to the
inquiring authority for further inquiry and report
and the inquiring authority shall thereupon
proceed to hold the further inquiry according to
the provisions of Rule 17 as far as may be.
(2) 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 disagreement
and record its own finding on such charge, if the
evidences on record is sufficient for the purpose.
(3) The disciplinary authority shall forward
or cause to be forwarded a copy of the inquiry
report, together with its own findings, if any, as
provided in sub-rule (2), to the government servant
who may submit, if he or she so desires, his or her
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
19/24written representation or submission to the
disciplinary authority within fifteen days.
(4) The disciplinary authority shall consider
the representation or submission, if any, submitted
by the government servant before proceeding
further in the manner specified in sub rules (5) and
(6).
[underline supplied]
(5) If the disciplinary authority having
regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of
charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties
specified in clauses (i) to (v) of rule 14 should be
imposed on the government servant, it shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in rule-19,
make an order imposing such penalty.
(6) If the disciplinary authority, having
regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of
charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced
during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the
penalties specified in [clauses (vi) to (xi) of Rule
14] should be imposed on the Government servant,
it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it
shall not be necessary to give the government
servant any opportunity of making representation
on the penalty proposed to be imposed:
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-rule (5) and (6), in every case where it is
necessary to consult the Commission, the
Commission shall be consulted and its advice shall
be taken into consideration before making any
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
20/24order imposing any penalty on the Government
servant.”
22. Once the procedure for imposing major penalty, as
is writ large from the memo of charge, was initiated against the
petitioner then it was incumbent upon the disciplinary
authorities to adhere with the statutory prescriptions as provided
under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005. Only after the submission of
the enquiry report by the Conducting Officer, if the disciplinary
authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in
Clause 1 to 5 of Rule, 14 of the Rules, 2005 should be imposed
on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in Rule 19, make an order of such penalty.
23. This Court finds that in response to the memo of
charge, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation, upon
which comments were asked for by the Divisional
Commissioner and based upon his comments, the impugned
order of punishment came to be passed. Thus, there is no
hesitation to hold that the order of punishment has been inflicted
without application of independent mind.
24. Coming to the impugned order, this Court also
finds that there is no discussion to any of the defence and the
grounds taken by the petitioner as to why the same are not
acceptable to the disciplinary authority. It only speaks that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
21/24
department has found that the settlement of Sairats took place
without publication of the notice in the two daily Hindi
newspapers and thus the petitioner has been found guilty for the
same.
25. Time without number, the Courts have observed
that it is an implied principle of law that any order having civil
consequences should be passed only after following principles
of natural justice.
26. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Kems Services Private Limited through its Managing
Director Mr. Mohan Kumar Khandelwal v. State of Bihar
and Others [2014(1) PLJR 622], held 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 while 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 canalize 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
22/24
it was not acceptable. Reasons have been held to be the hurt
and sould 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.”
27. The significance of assigning reasons by quasi
judicial authority has been elaborately summarized by the Apex
Court in the case of Kranti Associates and Another v. Masood
Ahmad Khan and Others [(2010) 9 SCC 496] mandating a
quasi judicial authority must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
28. For imposition of even minor penalty with
reference to certain alleged allegations and if they are disputed,
the concerned authority was required to initiate departmental
inquiry after giving due opportunity to the aggrieved persons.
The materials, available, on record clearly reveal that there is no
iota of reference to holding of an inquiry, furnishing of
inquirying officer’s report, show cause notice, reply to the show
cause notice. In an identical situation, the learned Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Manoranjan Singh (supra),
has held that assuming that regular departmental inquiry has
not been initiated with a view of imposing minor penalty, while
issuing show cause notice and seeking appellant’s reply. Even in
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
23/24
such circumstances, formalities are required to be followed by
the disciplinary authority insofar as issuing show cause notice
and receipt of aggrieved persons’ reply/explanation. The
contention raised by the aggrieved persons must be reflected in
the order after due analyzing each of the contention.
29. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Satyendra Kumar (supra), has also observed that the
impugned order(s) inflicting even minor punishment must
reflect reference to the reply filed on behalf of the delinquent
failing which the impugned order(s) shall be vulnerable to
interfere on account of non application of mind.
30. To summarize, it would be relevant herein that a
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16745 of 2021 dt.03-03-2025
24/24
affects a person’s basic need of the principles of natural justice
[vide The State of Bihar and Others v. Arun Kumar and
Another (L.P.A. No. 837 of 2023)].
31. In view of the discussions made hereinabove as
also the settled legal position, this Court finds the impugned
order dated 03.07.2017 as contained in Memo No. 8003 dated
04.07.2017 is unsustainable in law and thus it is hereby set
aside. On account of setting aside of the original order of
punishment, the subsequent order dated 09.07.2021 passed by
the reviewing authority, rejecting the review application of the
petitioner on the point of limitation, is also set aside.
32. The writ petition stands allowed.
33. Pending application, if any, shall also stands
disposed off.
34. There shall be no order as to cost(s).
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06-03-2025 Transmission Date