Patna High Court
Ramesh Prasad Diwakar vs The State Of Bihar on 8 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 1673 of 2023
======================================================
Ramesh Prasad Diwakar Son of Late Gaya Prasad Diwakar, Resident of South
Chakkar Maidan, Race Course, P.S. - Kazi Mohammadpur, District -
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Genral
Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar.
3. The Special Work Officer of the Government, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya Cum the Inquiry Officer.
5. The Additional Collector, Revenue, Gaya Cum the Presenting Officer.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Ranjeet Kr, Shikhar Mani, Kanishk Kaustubh,
Lakshmi Kri, Rajnish Prakash, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr Dhurendra Kr, AC to GP V
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-04-2025
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner
seeking the following relief:
"i. For setting aside the enquiry report
submitted by the enquiry officer as contained in
Letter dated 17.02.2021 whereby he found all
the charges proved against the petitioner
without there being any evidence in support of
the charges.
ii.
For setting aside the order
contained in Resolution of the General
Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna as contained in Memo No 5851
Patna High Court CWJC No.1673 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
2/8
dated 13.04.2022 issued with the signature of
the Special Works Officer of the Government,
General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna whereby the
petitioner has been dismissed from service and
has also been declared ineligible for future
employment under the Government of Bihar.
iii. The petitioner further prays that
after setting aside the enquiry report as well as
the order of punishment he may be reinstated in
service with all consequential benefit as he has
not been in gainful employment after his
dismissal from service.
iv. For any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioner may be deemed entitled to."
2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was
posted as LRDC at Sherghati in the district of Gaya, was trapped
by the Economic Offence Unit while receiving bribe of Rs
40,000/- from one Santosh Kumar and, accordingly, a first
information report bearing EOU PS Case No 28 of 2012 has been
registered for the offence under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. A departmental enquiry has also been initiated
against the petitioner vide Resolution dated 03.04.2014 (Annexure
1). The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer, denied the
charges and requested for supply of the documents. However, the
Department supplied incomplete set of papers to the petitioner. He
continuously requested for supply of other documents which were
never supplied to him. During the course of enquiry, no witness
Patna High Court CWJC No.1673 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
3/8
was cited or examined by the Department. Even after that, the
Enquiry Officer found the charges proved against the petitioner
and filed his Enquiry Report dated 17.02.2021 (Annexure 4). On
the basis of said, second show cause notice was issued vide Letter
dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure 5). The petitioner filed written
statement (Annexure 6) which was served on the respondents by
the petitioner on 12.07.2021. The petitioner again denied the
allegations, non-supply of documents and non-examination of
witnesses (Annexure 6). The petitioner, thereafter, filed a writ
petition being CWJC No 18157 of 2021 for setting aside the
enquiry report but during pendency of the same, the petitioner was
dismissed from service by Resolution dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure
7) and subsequently a review application filed by the petitioner
was also rejected vide order dated 23.06.2022 (Anneuxure 9). The
petitioner filed one interlocutory application in the said writ
petition challenging he order of dismissal as well as order passed
in the review. Later on, the said petition was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 12.12.2022 with liberty to the
petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. Hence, this petition has been
preferred by the petitioner.
3 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that as per Rule 17 (4) of the Bihar CCA Rules, the Presenting
Patna High Court CWJC No.1673 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
4/8
Officer has to prove the charges by way of oral and documentary
evidence. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the
Presenting Officer. The Presenting Officer remained present but
failed to prove the charges. Since no oral and documentary
evidence has been adduced by the Presenting Officer to prove the
charges, as such, the entire proceeding stands vitiated and the
charges, under the circumstances, stand not proved. Virtually, it is
a case of no evidence but this aspect has not been considered by
the Disciplinary Authority and the Reviewing Authority, while
passing the order impugned. According to the counsel, the
petitioner has not been gainfully employed from the date of his
termination and, therefore, he deserves to be reinstated in service
with full back wages and also the full salary for the period in
which he remained under suspension.
4 Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the
argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
submits that taking into consideration the documentary evidence
available on record and on the basis of admission made by the
petitioner during the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer rightly
arrived on the conclusion that both the charges levelled against the
petitioner found proved. Thus, the order passed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1673 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
5/8
Disciplinary Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority do not
warrant any interference.
5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused
the documents annexed with the petition as well as the counter
affidavit submitted by the learned counsel for the State.
6 The charge memo (Prapatra Ka) issued to the
petitioner which is annexed with the petition (running page 27 of
the petition) clearly shows that with the charge memo, no list of
witnesses was annexed nor any witness was cited by the
Department. The enquiry report (Annexure 4) also shows that
during the enquiry, no witness was examined by the Department
and only on the basis of submission made by the Presenting
Officer, the Enquiry Officer recorded his opinion.
7 There were two charges framed against the petitioner.
Charge No 1 relates to taking bribe of Rs 40,000/- by the petitioner
from the complainant. The Enquiry Officer, only on the basis of
the crime registered against the petitioner, arrived on the
conclusion that this charge has been duly proved against the
petitioner. While recording his opinion, he further recorded that
during the course of enquiry, on various dates, petitioner himself
admitted the fact that he was caught hold with bribe amount.
Further, the State has failed to point out any material which shows
Patna High Court CWJC No.1673 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
6/8
that at any stage of the enquiry, the petitioner made such type of
confession before the Enquiry Officer.
8 So far as the second charge is concerned, again the
Enquiry Officer recorded his opinion that in spite of direction
given by the Enquiry Officer, no defence has been adduced by the
petitioner, therefore, indirectly he admitted this charge. The above
finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is also not in accordance
with the record. For proving this charge also, no witness was
examined and the documents which have been relied by the
Enquiry Officer has not been tendered by any of the witness.
Therefore, charge No 2 has also not been proved against the
petitioner.
9 The Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Singh
-Versus- The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2024 SCC
Online SC 3325, reiterating the earlier view taken by it in the case
of Roop Singh Negi -Versus- Punjab National Bank and Others
(2009) 2 SCC 570, observed and held at 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1673 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
7/8
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 in the above referred cases, on examination of the
facts of the present case, it is clear that in his reply to the second
show cause notice (Annexure 6), the petitioner categorically raised
all these grounds, i e, non-supply of list of witnesses and
documents, non-examination of witnesses by the Department and
violation of the provisions of Bihar CCA Rules but the
Disciplinary Authority, while passing the order of dismissal, has
not considered any of the grounds raised by the petitioner nor the
Reviewing Authority while deciding the review petition filed by
the petitioner. Virtually, it is a case of no evidence and without any
legal evidence rendered by the Department, the finding of guilt has
been recorded by the Enquiry Officer and on the basis of said, the
services of the petitioner have wrongly been terminated by the
Disciplinary Authority.
11 Thus, the order of dismissal (Annexure 7) dated
13.04.2022
and the order of Reviewing Authority (Annexure 9)
dated 23.06.2022 are liable to be set aside.
12 Accordingly, both the orders are hereby quashed and
set aside.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1673 of 2023 dt.08-04-2025
13 The writ petition is allowed.
14 The petitioner is directed to be reinstated with all
consequential benefits.
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
