Patna High Court
Bhanu Prakash vs The State Of Bihar on 22 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 9684 of 2023
======================================================
Bhanu Prakash S/o Late R.D. Prasad Resident of New Area Bisar Road,
Gaya, P.O. and P.S. - Civil Line, District- Gaya, Pin - 823001, Presently
residing at 302 Miru Sumanglam Appt, Near Nisha Devi Mandir, East,
Lohinipur, Kadamkuan, Patna 800003.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department Government of Bihar Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Under Secretary, General Administration Department Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Begusarai.
5. The Bihar State Election Commissioner, Patna.
6. The Joint Election Commissioner, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Ranjeet Kr, Kanishk Kaustubh, Shikhar Mani,
Lakshmi Kri, Rajnish Prakash, Ankesh Kr
Sinha, Advocates
For the S t a t e : Mr Manish Kumar, GP IV
For the Bihar State
Election Commission : Mr Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-04-2025
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner
seeking the following reliefs:
"(I) For quashing of order/resolution
as contained in memo No 2325 dated 19.02.2021
issued by the Under Secretary, Government of
Bihar, Patna under the orders of the Governor
of Bihar (which was communicated to the
petitioner vide letter No 3597 dated 21.02.2023),
Patna High Court CWJC No.9684 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
2/7
whereby and where under an order of
punishment has been passed against the
petitioner:-
(A) Censure for the year 2008-09.
(B) Withholding of one increment of
pay without cumulative effect, in most arbitrary,
illegal and unreasonable manner.
(II) For quashing of the letter No 4676
dated 25.05.2009 issued under the signature of
Under Secretary to the Government whereby
and where under Prapatra KA was issued to the
petitioner.
(III) For any other appropriate
relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found
entitled in the facts and circumstances of this
case."
2 Brief facts of the case are that in the year, 2008-2009,
the petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer,
Bhagwanpur, Begusarai. On 25.05.2009, a charge memo was
issued by the District Magistrate in Prapatra Ka against the
petitioner and departmental proceeding was initiated giving show
cause to the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner was not
competent enough to call for meeting and other related charges. In
compliance of the letter dated 25.05.2009, the petitioner filed his
detailed reply vide his letter dated 20.06.2009 (Annexure 2).
Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred from the said post and
was posted as Settlement Officer, Araria. Since the matter was
kept pending and no reply was received, the petitioner was of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9684 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
3/7
view that the proceeding might have been dropped but when
petitioner's name was under consideration for promotion to Indian
Administrative Service, due to the fact that the matter is still
pending, his name could not be considered for promotion. The
petitioner made several requests to drop the proceedings pending
against him but no action was taken by the respondents. Suddenly,
on 11.02.2021, the GAD reframed the charge memo and obtained
the approval of the Disciplinary Authority but the same charge
memo (Annexure R-1/5) could not be supplied to the petitioner
and on 19.02.2021, the Disciplinary Authority passed the
impugned order (Annexure 5) whereby he imposed the minor
penalties against the petitioner of censor for the year 2008-2009
and stoppage of one annual increment of pay without cumulative
effect. According to the pleadings of the petitioner, the said order
of punishment has also not been supplied to the petitioner and it
has been supplied to the petitioner first time through
communication dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure 7). Hence, this
petition.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
along with the charge memo, no list of witnesses and list of
documents were provided to the petitioner. Subsequently when the
charges were reframed then also list of documents and list of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9684 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
4/7
witnesses were not provided to the petitioner though the same
were prepared. He further submits that in this matter, neither any
Enquiry Officer nor any Presenting Officer was appointed.
Without conducting any enquiry, just few days of reframing of the
charge, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order
whereby the petitioner has been punished. According to the
counsel, initial charge memo was issued on 25.05.2009 (Annexure
1). Reply of the said show cause was filed by the petitioner on
20.06.2009
related to charge levelled against him but the
Department has not taken any further steps and kept mum till
passing of impugned order dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure 5) which
has also not been provided to the petitioner for the reason that the
name of the petitioner was to be considered for his promotion as
the Officer of Indian Administrative Service, therefore, the entire
action taken by the respondents is clearly biased.
4 Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the
argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
submits that taking into consideration the opinion received from
the Election Commission and other authorities, the Disciplinary
Authority passed the impugned order of punishment. He further
submits that before passing of such order, the Disciplinary
Authority duly obtained the approval of the competent authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.9684 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
and reframed the charges and, thereafter, on the basis of materials
available with him, passed the impugned order.
5 I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the
parties, perused the documents annexed with the petition as well as
the counter affidavit and rejoinder of the petitioner.
6 Undisputably when the first charge memo was issued
in the year 2009 (Annexure 1), no list of witnesses or list of
documents were prepared nor provided to the petitioner. The show
cause has been filed by the petitioner on 20.06.2009. Even after
that, the respondents did not pass any order and kept mum. The
respondent-State in its counter affidavit and supplementary counter
affidavit, has not mentioned the fact that at any point of time, any
Enquiry Officer or Presenting Officer was appointed. They were
also unable to produce any enquiry report conducted by any
Enquiry Officer rather the documents submitted by the respondent-
State itself shows that the reframed memo of article of charges
(Annexure R1/5) was prepared and signed on 11.02.2021. There is
no material shown by the respondents that this charge memo was
ever served on the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed
by the Disciplinary Authority on 19.02.2021, i e, just after few
days after signing the reframed charge memo. Thus, it is quite
clear that though charge memo was reframed on 11.02.2021 but no
Patna High Court CWJC No.9684 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
enquiry was conducted by any person and without getting any
statement of witness or without proving any document from any of
the witness, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order
of punishment against he petitioner.
7 A categorical statement has been made by the
petitioner that the impugned order of punishment has been served
upon him through communication dated 21.02.2023, i e, after two
years of passing of the impugned order of punishment. The above
statement of the petitioner has been supported by the
communication dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure 7). The above
averment made by the petitioner has not been duly rebutted by the
respondents in their counter affidavit. Thus, it is also clear that the
order of punishment (Annexure 5) has been communicated to the
petitioner after two years of passing of the said order. Therefore,
this Court finds substance in the argument raised by the counsel
that only to deprive the petitioner to get promotion, all the
documents were prepared.
8 Taking into consideration the above discussion, I am
of the view that the impugned order dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure
5) is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside.
9 The petitioner is entitled to get all consequential
benefits applicable to him.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9684 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025
10 The writ petition is allowed.
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
