Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Sultan Ahmed on 7 August, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.240 of 2020
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13624 of 2018
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional/ Special Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land
Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Under Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
6. The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
7. The Conducting Officer, Gaya.
8. The Presenting Officer, Gaya.
9. The Settlement Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
... ... Appellants.
Versus
Sultan Ahmed, son of Late Md. Akhtar, Resident of Mohalla- New Azimabad
Colony, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Navnit Kumar, AC to GP-18.
For the Respondent : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 07-08-2025
I.A. No.1 of 2020:
Heard.
2. There is a delay of about 136 days in filing the
present L.P.A. No.240 of 2020.
3. For the reasons stated in I.A. No.1 of 2020 read
with the affidavit, delay of about 136 days in filing the present
Patna High Court L.P.A No.240 of 2020 dt.07-08-2025
L.P.A. No.240 of 2020 stands condoned and, accordingly, I.A.
No.1 of 2020 stands allowed.
L.P.A. No.240 of 2020:
4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the
appellants, the present L.P.A. No.240 of 2020 is taken up for
final disposal.
5. Respondent was subjected to disciplinary
proceedings and it was concluded in imposition of penalty of
dismissal from service and it was the subject matter of C.W.J.C.
No.13624 of 2018 and it was allowed on 20.09.2019. Hence,
the present L.P.A. No.240 of 2020.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants could not
apprise as to what is error committed by the learned Single
Judge. On the other hand, the learned Single Judge has
recorded in paragraphs-13 and 15 of the order dated 20.09.2019
passed in C.W.J.C. No.13624 of 2018 as under:
"13. The report of the Inquiry Officer has
three columns; the charges have been mentioned in
the 1st column, the 2nd column contains the
explanation/reply of the petitioner submitted in the
departmental enquiry and the 3rd column contains
findings/conclusions of the Inquiry Officer. It is
easily evincible on reading of the enquiry report,
that there was no evidence at all adduced before the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.240 of 2020 dt.07-08-2025
Inquiry Officer in support of the change. The
conclusions are apparently based on his (Inquiry
Officer's) comparative examination of the charges
framed against the petitioner and the written
statement of the defence filed by him. It is quite
significant to note that the Inquiry Officer has not
held any of the charges framed against the
petitioner to have been proved. In respect of the
charge relating to the trap case lodged against the
petitioner, the Inquiry Officer has recorded that
there was no valid settlement of the land in
question, in favour of husband of the complainant
Smt. Priya Sharma. The Inquiry Officer has further
recorded that on the basis of illegal settlement
obtained under the orders of an incompetent
authority, i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer/Deputy
Collector, Land Reforms, since the complainant
had failed to assume possession over the land in
question, she got the petitioner arrested in a trap
case. The conclusion of the Inquiry Officer in
respect of the said charge is as follows:
"leh{kk ls Li"V gksrk gS fd ifjoknuh fiz;k 'kekZ
dh xyr eU'kk ,oa vapy vf/kdkjh ds Lrj ls dk;Z fu"iknu esa
ltxrk dk vHkko n`f"Vxkspj gksrk gSA"
English translation of the said finding
would read thus:
"On analysis, ill-motive of the
complainant Priya Sharma and lack of alertness in
the disposal of work at the level of Circle Officer
are evident."
Patna High Court L.P.A No.240 of 2020 dt.07-08-2025
13. It can be easily seen that according to
the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner lacked in
alertness in discharge of his official duties. This is
his only finding in respect of the charge against the
petitioner arising out of the trap case. The findings
of the Inquiry Officer on the charges framed
against the petitioner on 15.06.2011 are as under:
"iapk;r fuokZpu] 2011 esa Jh vgen okgu dks"kkax
ds izHkkjh Fks vkSj okgu dks"kkax] csykxat mPp fo|ky; esa
dk;Zjr Fkk] fdUrq o"kkZ ds QyLo:i okgu dks"kkax mPp
fo|ky; ds LFkku ij Fkkuk ifjlj] csykxat esa ifjofrZr
gksus ds dkj.k dk;Z fu"iknu esa foyEc gqvk fdUrq iapk;r
fuokZpu 'kkafr iw.kZ lEiUu gks x;kA
izHkkjh inkf/kdkjh] csykxat ds izfrosnu ds i'pkr~
vapy dk;kZy; dk jksdM+ cgh v|ru gqvk vkSj fdlh
rjg dh foRrh; vfu;errk ugha ikbZ xbZA"
English translation of this finding would read
thus:-
"In the Panchayat Election 2011, Sri Ahmad
was incharge of the Vehicle Cell and Vehicle Cell
was functioning at Belaganj High School, but
due to the rain and shifting of vehicle cell from
High School to the premises of the police Station,
Belaganj, execution of the work was delayed, but
the Panchayat election was conducted peacefully.
After the report, of Incharge officer,
Belaganj the cash register of the Circle Office was
updated and no financial irregularities were
Patna High Court L.P.A No.240 of 2020 dt.07-08-2025
found."
15. The only finding recorded by the
Inquiry Officer which can be termed adverse
against the petitioner is that he was deficient in
alertness in disposal of work. This, in my opinion,
does not constitute a misconduct, per se, inviting
disciplinary action, in the absence of any definite
proof of delinquency in performance and its
consequence on the discipline and nature of duty.
Misconduct is a 'forbidden act' whereas dereliction
of duty is 'forbidden quality of an act' and is
necessarily indefinite, the Supreme Court observed
in case of Dayal Singh Vs. The State of
Uttaranchal, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 263 (see
para 21). The vague finding of 'lack in alertness' in
my view can't be said to constituting misconduct
for a disciplinary action. Negligence, in order to
constitute misconduct should not be mere
carelessness or inadvertence or omission but
culpable negligence, the Supreme Court held in
case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of
India reported in (1999) 7 SCC 409."
7. Reading of paragraph-15 of the aforesaid order
dated 20.09.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No.13624 of 2018, if the
allegation is that the respondent was not discharging his duties
in alertness insofar as disposal of certain work, it does not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.240 of 2020 dt.07-08-2025
amount to misconduct. For trivial allegation, the respondent has
been punished with a major penalty of dismissal from service.
Further, we have to take note of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
decision in the case of Union of India and others Versus J.
Ahmed, reported in (1979) 2 Supreme Court Cases 286,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to discuss
what amounts to misconduct.
8. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the
appellants have not made out a case so as to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.09.2019 passed in
C.W.J.C. No.13624 of 2018.
9. Accordingly, the present L.P.A. No.240 of 2020
stands dismissed.
10. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
P.S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.08.2025.
Transmission Date NA
