Patna High Court
Sitaram Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 16 June, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1490 of 2020
======================================================
Sitaram Prasad, S/o Late Gulan Prasad, R/o Village- Tesu (P.O.), P.S.
Jairampur @ More, District Sheikhpura, at present working as a demoted
Clerk in the Office of Labour Superintendent Lakhisarai, Labour Department.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Additional Principal Secretary, Labour Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Labour Commissioner, Labour Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Joint Labour Commissioner, Labour Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Labour Superintendent, Labour Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Salahuddin Khan, Advocate
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Das, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, AC to AAG-10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-06-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the Office Order, as
contained in Memo No. 3020 dated 09.07.2019, issued by the
Labour Commissioner, Labour Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna, whereby the petitioner was demoted to the
minimum pay scale of Clerk and further a direction has been
issued to recover 16% interest over the amount of
registration/renewal fee of the building construction labourers
deposited in his personal accounts. The petitioner is also
aggrieved with the appellate order, as contained in Memo No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1490 of 2020 dt.16-06-2025
2/11
3997 dated 23.09.2019, whereby the appeal preferred by the
petitioner came to be rejected by the Additional Principal
Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and
the order of punishment aforenoted came to be affirmed.
3. The facts of the case is in narrow compass. While
the petitioner was working as Clerk in the office of the Labour
Superintendent, Nalanda at Biharsharif in the year 2016, he was
transferred to the office of the Labour Superintendent,
Lakhisarai; where he joined on 27.10.2016. During the said
period, while the petitioner was posted in the office of the
Labour Superintendent, Nalanda at Biharsharif, some amount
under Registration/Renewal Fee for building construction
labourers have been received in the office of Labour
Superintendent, but it could not be deposited in the Government
Treasury or the official account of the department and allegedly
it has been deposited in the account of the petitioner and his
wife. The aforesaid amount has later on deposited in the
Government treasury on 14.11.2017 and 06.12.2017. The
aforesaid fact led to initiation of a departmental proceeding after
furnishing memo of charge over the petitioner. In response to
the memo of charge, the petitioner submitted his categorical
reply. After enquiry, charges stood proved against the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.1490 of 2020 dt.16-06-2025
3/11
and based upon that, the disciplinary authority inflicted
punishment aforenoted by the impugned order after issuance of
second show cause notice to the petitioner.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Salahuddin
Khan, while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the
period during which the amount allegedly could not be
deposited, such period was affected with demonetization and
only in order to save the subjected Government amount, the
petitioner bonafidely deposited the same in his own account and
the account of his wife. There is specific contention that when
the amount in question was received during the period
aforenoted, the then Labour Superintendent, namely, Ganesh
Prasad was not interested in signing on the rokar bahi and the
bank slip for depositing the said money in the Government
Treasury and thus it was kept in the office, the petitioner left
with no option deposited the same in his account and the
account of his wife. The moment new Labour Superintendent
namely, Niraj Nayan joined on 08.07.2016, the aforesaid money
was deposited in the Government treasury on 14.11.2017 and
06.12.2017
. Had it been the intention of the petitioner to siphon
the amount aforenoted, he would not have been deposited the
amount, rather deposited in the account of some unknown
Patna High Court CWJC No.1490 of 2020 dt.16-06-2025
4/11
person but depositing the amount in his own account and the
account of his wife clearly shows his innocence.
5. It is further contended that bonafide of the petitioner
is writ large, as immediately after the joining of the new Labour
Superintendent, the amount has been deposited and no loss has
ever caused to the public exchequer. The order of punishment
demoting the petitioner on the minimum pay scale of Clerk is
severe punishment and not proportionate to the charges which is
said to have been found prove. The petitioner is still ready to
deposit the interest over the amount which has been accrued
over the subjected amount, during the period, it was kept in his
account and the account of his wife. It is also contended that
with respect to tampering of record, despite the demand being
made by the petitioner to produce the record, the same has never
been produced and, as such, the finding of the Inquiry Officer
that there is tampering in the record does not substantiate and
moreover, the Labour Officer, Ms. Sneha Shiwani in her
deposition has stated that she had never made any complaint.
6. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the facts
of the case speak loud and nonetheless the petitioner admitted
the charges of temporary embezzlement. It is the admitted
Patna High Court CWJC No.1490 of 2020 dt.16-06-2025
5/11
position that the amount has been deposited by the petitioner in
his account and the account of his wife, which was later on
deposited in the Government treasury, only after the direction of
the new incumbent. Had the petitioner been so sanguine about
the safety of the amount, it should have been definitely
deposited in the Government treasury, rather he had deposited
the said amount in his own account and the account of his wife,
which is a serious misconduct and financial irregularity. During
enquiry, the witness was also examined. The Labour Inspector,
namely, Smt. Sneha Shiwani has supported the charges and on
being found all the charges proved, the impugned order of
punishment came to be passed in accordance with law, after
giving proper opportunity to the petitioner, which does not
require any interference; the impugned punishment is
proportionate to the proved charges is the contention of the
learned Advocate for the State.
7. This Court has given patience hearing and anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned
Advocate for the respective parties and also perused the
materials available on record meticulously.
8. From perusal of the record; facts are admitted, as
also the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved to
Patna High Court CWJC No.1490 of 2020 dt.16-06-2025
6/11
the extent that while he was posted in the office of the Labour
Superintendent, Nalanda in the year 2016, an amount of
Rs.7,07,400/- was received in the office against the
Registration/Renewal Fee for labourers of Bihar Building &
Other Construction Workers Welfare Board (hereinafter referred
to as ‘BOCW’), was deposited in the account of the petitioner
and kept therein for 8-9 months; out of the aforenoted amount,
Rs.40,000/- was also deposited in the joint account of the
petitioner with his wife Pancha Devi. Subsequently on strict
direction of Labour Superintendent, the amount was deposited
in the Government Treasury on 14.11.2017 and further on
06.12.2017 through the Bank drafts prepared by the State Bank
of India. There was one another charge, levelled against the
petitioner with respect to tampering of the record, which was
duly refuted by the petitioner. In the aforesaid premise, the
petitioner was served with the Memo of charge and subjected to
departmental proceeding. In course of enquiry, the material
witness was examined and the Presenting officer supported the
charges and finally the enquiry officer concluded the enquiry
and returned the finding of guilt on being found all the charges
proved. The petitioner was served with the second show-cause
notice; response was made by the petitioner and finally
Patna High Court CWJC No.1490 of 2020 dt.16-06-2025
7/11
impugned order of punishment came to be passed, which was
duly affirmed by the appellate authority.
9. The explanation set forth by the petitioner, as is
evident from the record, is in limited bound that despite the oral
request made by the petitioner to the then Labour
Superintendent Shri Ganesh Jha, he did not show any interest
and not allowed spare time to the petitioner to deposit the
amount, in question, in the Government Treasury and thus in
order to save the Government money, the same was deposited in
his account, as also the joint account of the petitioner with his
wife. This explanation of the petitioner without any
documentary proof and the witness had not been accepted.
10. The Courts have been reminded time and again
through the enumerated decisions that while exercising the
power of judicial review, the Court is only confined to decision
making process and not the decision.
11. It is settled proposition of law that in exercise of
the power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
the Court cannot venture into re-appreciation of the evidence or
interfere in conclusion with the enquiry officer, if the same are
conducted in accordance with law, or go into
reliability/adequacy of evidence, or interfere if there is legal
Patna High Court CWJC No.1490 of 2020 dt.16-06-2025
8/11
evidence on which findings are based, or correct error of fact
however grave it may be, or go into proportionality of
punishment unless it shocks conscience of Court. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. P.
Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 has painstakingly enunciated
the guidelines and scope of interference while exercising the
power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and held that
“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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1490 of 2020 dt.16-06-2025
9/11admit 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.”
12. As regards the power of the High Court to
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, [(2024) 6 SCC 418]. Reiterating the settled legal
position right from the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723] as also in the case
of State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao
[(1975) 2 SCC 557] and State Bank of Patiala & Ors. Vs. S K
Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364]. The Apex Court in the case of
Bhupendra Singh (supra) has also 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 has not caused prejudice to the respondents to the extent
warranting judicial interdiction and the charges were proved
Patna High Court CWJC No.1490 of 2020 dt.16-06-2025
10/11
based upon legal evidence, the order of dismissal should not
interfere normally.
13. While considering the scope of interference with a
quantum of punishment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further
observed that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India, it cannot go into the
proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does
not shock the conscience of the court. The charges against the
petitioner found to be proved and the petitioner has been
inflicted the punishment demoting to the minimum pay scale of
Clerk and further a direction has been issued to recover 16%
interest over the amount for the period, which was kept in his
account and the joint account of his wife.
14. The act of the petitioner clearly reflected lack of
integrity and even if it is accepted that it was not an
embezzlement of Government money, but was a temporary
embezzlement and the petitioner has deposited the amount, in
question, after ten months and during this interregnum period
the fact of deposition of amount, in question, in his account has
not been disclosed to any higher authority and thus, prima facie,
lacks bonafide on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner failed
to point any infirmities in the departmental proceeding, which
Patna High Court CWJC No.1490 of 2020 dt.16-06-2025
11/11
led to the issuance of the punishment order by the disciplinary
authority and its affirmance by the Appellate authority.
15. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any
reason or occasion to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 17.06.2025 Transmission Date NA