Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 29 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 7776 of 2023
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar son of Late Rajendra Prashad Resident of Mohalla- Raghunath
Tola, P.O.- Anishabad, P.S.- Phulwarisharif,
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Commissioner Magadh Division, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Punpun, District- Patna.
6. The Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Akhilesh Dutt Verma, Sumit Kr Jha, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr Raj Kishore Roy, GP XVIII
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-05-2025
This petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting
aside the order dated 08.10.2018 (Annexure 6) whereby and where
under the Disciplinary Authority, i e, District Magistrate -cum-
Collector, Patna has awarded the punishment of compulsory
retirement from the service against the petitioner. Further
challenge is to the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the Appellate
Authority (Annexure 7A) whereby and where under the appeal
preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.
2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was
appointed as Revenue Staff and at the relevant time, i e, in the year
Patna High Court CWJC No.7776 of 2023 dt.29-05-2025
2/7
2014, he was posted as Circle Officer, Phulwarisharif, District-
Patna. Vide letter dated 859 dated 16.03.2015, a charge memo in
Prapatra Ka was issued against him wherein eight charges were
framed. Presenting Officer and Conducting Officer were also
appointed. The charge memo was served on the petitioner on
24.04.2015
. He submitted his reply on 09.05.2015 and demanded
certain documents on which the said charges were framed but no
document was provided to the petitioner. Enquiry Officer
submitted his enquiry report (Annexure 3) dated 22.07.2015.
Second show cause was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure 4
series dated 11.12.2015. Again, the petitioner demanded certain
documents through his communication dated 12.01.2016 which
has not been provided to him. Subsequently, vide order dated
03.05.2018 (Annexure 5), again second charge memo has been
issued against the petitioner and again the Enquiry Officer and the
Presenting Officer were appointed. Subsequently, on the basis of
enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 22.07.2015,
the order of punishment has been passed by the Disciplinary
Authority vide Annexure 6 dated 08.10.2018 by which the
Disciplinary Authority inflicted the punishment of compulsory
retirement from the services against the petitioner. Departmental
appeal has been preferred by the petitioner which has also been
Patna High Court CWJC No.7776 of 2023 dt.29-05-2025
3/7
rejected by order dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure 7A). Hence, this
petition.
3 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that even after submission of the enquiry report dated 22.07.2015,
no decision has been taken by the Disciplinary Authority and
subsequently the second charge memo (Annexure 5) dated
03.05.2018 has been issued against the petitioner and the
Disciplinary Authority, relying upon the enquiry report dated
22.07.2015 of the Enquiry Officer (Annexure 3) passed the
impugned order of punishment. After issuance of the second
charge memo, no further enquiry was held and while passing the
impugned order of compulsory retirement from services, the
Disciplinary Authority did not consider the show cause submitted
by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that on both
occasions, i e, at the time of issuance of both the charge memos,
neither any list of witnesses nor list of documents were prepared
and without recording of any evidence and without examining any
of the witness, the Enquiry Officer found some of the charges
proved against the petitioner. The finding recorded by the Enquiry
Officer is based upon certain documents but none of the witnesses
have tendered such documents during the course of enquiry.
According to the counsel, the Disciplinary Authority, while
Patna High Court CWJC No.7776 of 2023 dt.29-05-2025
4/7
passing the order impugned, did not consider this aspect and
further the Appellate Authority also did not consider this aspect
and passed the order of rejection of the appeal.
4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgments in the cases of Ravindra Nath Singh -Versus- Bihar
State Transport Corporation & Others, 1996 (2) PLJR 95, Roop
Singh Negi -Versus- Punjab National Bank & Others, (2009) 2
Supreme Court Cases 570, State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
-Versus Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, Commissioner of
Police Delhi & Others -Versus- Jay Bhagwan, (2011) 6 SCC 376,
M V Bijalani -Versus- Union of India & Others, (2006) 5 SCC
88, Kuldeep Singh -Versus- Commissioner of Police & Others,
(1999) 2 SCC 10, Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd & Others -Versus-
Masood Ahmad Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, Vijendra Prasad
-Versus- The State of Bihar & Others, 2019 (4) PLJR 1446, Arun
Kumar -Versus- The State of Bihar & Others, 2019 (3) BLJ 221
and Satyendra Singh -Versus- The State of Uttar Pradesh &
Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 3325.
5 Learned State Counsel opposes the argument raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused
the documents annexed with the petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7776 of 2023 dt.29-05-2025
5/7
7 The petitioner has annexed both the charge memos
issued against him and categorically pleaded that on both
occasions, no list of witnesses and list of documents were prepared
nor provided to the petitioner. The above averment raised by the
petitioner has not been rebutted by the State in its counter
affidavit. Both the charge memos annexed with the petition also
show that there were neither list of witnesses nor list of documents
on which the Department relied. Perusal of the enquiry report
further shows that the Enquiry Officer, only on the basis of some
documents, arrived on the conclusion that some of the charges
levelled against the petitioner have been proved. How the
documents were tendered has not been mentioned by the Enquiry
Officer in his enquiry report.
8 Dealing with the issue in the case of Roop Singh Negi
(supra), the Supreme Court held that mere production of document
is not enough. The contents of the documents has to be proved by
examining the witness. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed at paragraph 23 as under:
“23. Furthermore, the order of the
disciplinary authority as also the appellate
authority are not supported by any reason. As th
orders passed by them have severe civil
consequences, appropriate reasons should have
been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied
upon the confession made by the appellant,
there was no reason as to why the order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7776 of 2023 dt.29-05-2025
6/7discharge passed by the criminal court on the
basis of selfsame evidence should not have been
been taken into consideration. The materials
brought on record pointing out the guilt are
required to be proved. A decision must be
arrived at on some evidence, which is legally
admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act
may not be applicable in a departmental
proceeding but the principles of natural justice
are. As the report of the enquiry officer was
based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and
conjectures, the same could not have been
sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry
officer apparently were not supported by any
evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however,
high may be, can under no circumstances be
held to be a substitute for legal proof.”
9 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra
Singh (supra) again observed and held in paragraph 17 as follows:
“17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry,
it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the
witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested
the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone
of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded
by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi
and Nirmala J Jhala, we are of the firm view
that the inquiry proceedings conducted against
the appellant pertaining to charges punishable
with major penalty, were totally vitiated and
non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence
whatsoever was recorded by the department in
support of the charges.”
10 In the light of the above observations made by the
Supreme Court, on examination of the facts of this case, it is quite
clear that the Disciplinary Authority, while passing the order
impugned, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, i e,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7776 of 2023 dt.29-05-2025
7/7
the major penalty but in the matter, neither the witnesses were
examined nor any list of documents were prepared and provided to
the petitioner and without recording any evidence of any of the
witness, the Enquiry Officer, only on the basis of certain
documents, arrived at the conclusion that some of the charges
levelled against the petitioner are proved. The enquiry report is
silent on the point that from where the documents which he relied
were procured and who were the persons who tendered the
documents.
11 Therefore, in the light of the above observation made
by the Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) and
Satyendra Singh (supra), the impugned order dated 08.10.2018
(Annexure 6) and the appellate order dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure
7A) are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, both the orders are
quashed and set aside.
12 The writ petition is allowed.
13 The respondents are directed to reinstate the services
of the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits.
(Arvind Singh Chandel , J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 02.05.2025 Transmission Date NA