Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 January, 2024
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3536 of 2020
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar, S/o Shiv Parsann Singh @ Shiv Darshan Singh, R/o Village-
Lai, Patut, P.S.- Bihta, Dist.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Dy. Inspector General of Police Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Sheohar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Parasmani, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. N.H. Khan (SC-1)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-01-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner for quashing the order of Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur, issued vide memo No. 2670
dated 30.09.2019 annexed as Annexure-9 and also for quashing
the order no. 121/2019 communicated through memo no. 296
dated 13.02.2019 annexed as Annexure-6 passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Sheohar by which the petitioner has
been dismissed from the service.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was PTC (Constable) in Sheohar Police Force and
during his posting at Sheohar, FIR has been lodged against the
petitioner on 04.10.2018 bearing Sheohar P.S. Case No. 226 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3536 of 2020 dt.04-01-2024
2/8
2018 under section 37(A) and 37(C) of Bihar Prohibition of
Excise Act, 2016 upon information of S.H.O., Sheohar. Counsel
also submits that the petitioner was taken into custody and a
show cause has been asked from him on 09.10.2018 by the
Superintendent of Police, Sheohar as to why a departmental
enquiry be not initiated against the petitioner. Counsel further
submits that vide Memo no. 1418 dated 14.10.2018 annexed as
Annexure-1/4 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sheohar
issued the charge memo along with the appointment of Enquiry
Officer and Presenting Officer along with the documents
mentioned therein. Counsel specifically pleaded that no show
cause has been asked with respect to the charge memo from
him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
enquiry was conducted bearing departmental enquiry no. 17 of
2018 in which witnesses were examined and the documents
were exhibited and enquiry report was submitted vide Memo no.
1591 dated 20.11.2018 annexed as Annexure-2. Counsel also
submits that without reaching on the findings with respect to the
charge, the petitioner was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer
and the charge has been told to be proved against him.
Thereafter, a second show cause notice issued vide Memo No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3536 of 2020 dt.04-01-2024
3/8
1685 dated 23.11.2018 annexed as Annexure-3 and the
petitioner has submitted his second show cause and informed
that he was a victim of conspiracy, but even then none of his
points were considered and he was proposed punishment of
dismissal by letter dated 08.12.2018 annexed as Annexure-5 and
the final order passed on 13.02.2019. Counsel also submits that
thereafter, the petitioner has preferred appeal before the D.I.G.,
Muzaffarpur and when no order was passed, then the petitioner
preferred writ petition before this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.
14899 of 2019 annexed as Annexure-8 which was disposed of
vide order dated 26.07.2019 directing the D.I.G., Tirhut Range,
Muzaffarpur (respondent no.2) to consider the appeal within a
period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the
order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that in the appeal, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the
appeal and communicated to him through Memo No. 2670 dated
30.09.2019
and thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner seeks judicial review of
the orders primarily on two grounds by which he want to show
that there is procedural lapse in the departmental proceeding.
Counsel also submits that the disciplinary proceeding of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3536 of 2020 dt.04-01-2024
petitioner is guided by the Bihar Police Manual as well as by the
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal)
Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "CCA Rules, 2005").
Counsel further submits that there is a gross violation of Rule
17(4) and Rule 17(23) of the CCA Rules, 2005 in case of the
petitioner. Counsel also submits that the contention of the Rule
17(4) of CCA Rules, 2005 is that the disciplinary authority shall
deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government Servant a
copy of the articles of charge, such statement of the imputations
of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and
witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be
sustained and shall require the Government Servant to submit,
within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his
defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person.
Counsel submits that such written statement of his defence has
not been demanded from him. Rule 17(23) of CCA Rules, 2005
has also been violated due to the reason that assessment of the
evidence in respect of each article of charge and finding of each
article of charge with the respective reasons were also not made
in the enquiry report and therefore, any further action on the
basis of the said defective procedure shall not sustain in the eye
of law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3536 of 2020 dt.04-01-2024
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
submits that the petitioner has no case at all due to the reason
that he want judicial review of a departmental proceeding where
there is no procedural lapse and a proportionate order has been
passed. Counsel also submits that show cause notice has already
been issued to him and he also submits that in the enquiry
proceeding, the charge alleged has been proved by the Enquiry
Officer and therefore, there is no need of any interference.
Counsel for the State makes alternative prayer that in case, this
Court finds that there is any procedural lapse, then further
opportunity to the State may be granted so that the action may
continue against the delinquent.
7. With a view to decide this matter, it is necessary to
quote Rule 17(4) and Rule 17(23) of the CCA Rules, 2005
which states as under:-
"Rule 17(4) states as follows:-
The disciplinary authority shall deliver
or cause to be delivered to the
Government Servant a copy of the
articles of charge, such statement of the
imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour and a list of documents
and witnesses by which each article of
charge is proposed to be sustained and
shall require the Government Servant to
submit, within such time as may be
specified, a written statement of his
defence and to state whether he desires
Patna High Court CWJC No.3536 of 2020 dt.04-01-2024
to be heard in person.
Rule 17(23) states as follows:-
Rule 17(23)(i) After the conclusion of
the inquiry, a record shall be prepared
and it shall contain:-
(a) the articles of charge and the
statement of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour;
(b) the defence of the Government
Servant in respect of each article of
charge.
(c) an assessment of the evidence in
respect of each article of charge,
(d) the findings on each article of
charge and the reasons thereof.
Explanation. - If in the opinion of the
inquiring authority the proceedings of
the inquiry may establish any article of
charge different from the original
articles of the charge, he may record
his findings on such article of charge:
Provided that the findings on such
article of charge shall not be recorded
unless the Government Servant has
either admitted the facts on which such
article of charge is based or has had a
reasonable opportunity of defending
himself against such article of charge.
Rule 17(23)(ii) The inquiring authority,
where it is not itself the disciplinary
authority, shall forward to the
disciplinary authority the records of
inquiry which shall include-
(a) the report prepared by it under
clause (i) of this sub rule;
Patna High Court CWJC No.3536 of 2020 dt.04-01-2024
(b) the written statement of defence, if
any, submitted by the Government
Servant;
(c) the oral and documentary evidence
produced in the course of the inquiry;
(d) written briefs, if any, filed by the
Presenting Officer or the Government
Servant or both during the course of
the inquiry; and
(e) the orders, if any, made by the
disciplinary authority and the
inquiring authority in regard to the
inquiry."
8. Upon perusal of the documents and hearing the
parties, it transpires to this Court that the charge memo has been
issued to the petitioner on 14.10.2018 whereas, show cause was
issued to the petitioner vide Memo no. 1769 dated 09.10.2018
annexed as Annexure-1 and upon perusal of this annexure, it
transpires that the said show cause have been issued prior to
issuance of charge memo and the contents of Rule 17(4) of the
CCA Rules, 2005 categorically states that the written statement
of his defence has to be demanded with a copy of article of
charge which is lacking in the present case.
9. Upon perusal of Memo of charge, the indication of
show cause dated 09.10.2018 has been mentioned in the charge
memo prior to issuance of charge memo on 14.10.2018, but
written statement not demanded which is not the correct
Patna High Court CWJC No.3536 of 2020 dt.04-01-2024
procedure in the view of the Court. Similarly in the enquiry
report which is Annexure-2, there is no specific finding of each
charge. As such, these are the procedural lapses existed in the
proceeding and hence, this Court has no option but to set aside
the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range,
Muzaffarpur, issued vide memo No. 2670 dated 30.09.2019
annexed as Annexure-9 and also set aside the order no.
121/2019 communicated through memo no. 296 dated
13.02.2019 annexed as Annexure-6 passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Sheohar, but liberty is hereby given to
the State that he may proceed from the stage of charge memo in
accordance with law afresh and conclude the enquiry within 9
months from the date of production of the order.
10. Respondents are directed to accept the joining of
the petitioner and after receiving the joining, they are free to
take action in accordance with CCA Rules, 2005.
11. With the above observations and directions, this
writ petition is hereby allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 06.01.2024
Transmission Date
