Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar Rajak vs The State Of Bihar on 11 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 15840 of 2022
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar Rajak Son of Late Mahendra Prasad Rajak, Resident of
Village - Hanswar, P.S. Manihari, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, (Police), Government
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Government of Bihar,
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Kr Kaushik, Hemant Raj, Namrata Dubey,
Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Manish Kumar ( Gp 4 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-08-2025
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner
seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) For issuance of an appropriate
writ to quash the resolution of the Home
Department (Police) Government of Bihar
contained in number 9173 dated 08.09.2022 by
which the Government has decided to initiate the
departmental proceeding against the petitioner
under Rule 17 (5) (C) of Bihar CCA Rules 2005.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ for commanding and directing the
respondents to not initiate/conduct a
departmental proceeding against the petitioner
till the disposal of the criminal proceeding.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15840 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
2/9
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ for commanding and directing the
respondents not to take any final decision in the
departmental proceeding till the disposal of the
criminal proceeding.
(iv) For any other relief/reliefs,
order/orders, direction/directions may be issued
in favour of the petitioner in accordance with
law for which he is entitled to in the ends of
justice, equity and fair play."
2 Facts of the case are that on 08.01.2011, the petitioner
was appointed as Assistant Manager JMG-1 in the Central Bank of
India and joined his services there on 18.01.2011. One FIR has
been registered against him being EOU PS Case No 23 of 2012 on
20.10.2012
for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468,
473, 120B of the IPC. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated
against the petitioner and charge sheet was served by the Central
Bank of India (Annexure 23A) on 09.02.2015. Vide Annexure 24
dated 22.04.2015, third charge was added to the charge sheet and
the Enquiry Officer was directed to enquire the third charge also.
The third charge related to the FIR bearing EOU PS Case No 23 of
2012 registered by the EOU on 20.10.2012 as well as on the
ground that the petitioner had suppressed the aforesaid fact before
his employer, i e, the Central Bank of India. Meanwhile, the
petitioner, after getting NOC, participated in the recruitment
process conducted by the BPSC for the 53rd to 55th combined
Patna High Court CWJC No.15840 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
competitive examination for appointment to the gazetted service.
Petitioner was declared finally successful. At the time of
document verification, petitioner submitted his affidavit dated
30.06.2014 (Annexure 1) wherein it has been declared by him that
there is one criminal case pending against him bearing EOU PS
Case No 23 of 2012 in which charge sheet has not been submitted
against him. Finally, the appointment letter (Annexure 4) has been
issued to the petitioner on 05.02.2015 and he joined his services
after getting no objection from the Bank, i e, his previous
employer. The Bank had accepted the resignation vide order dated
18.09.2015 with effect from 09.02.2015 (Annexure 26C). The
Enquiry Officer of the Bank submitted his enquiry report on
28.07.2015 (Annexure 24B). On the basis of said, the Disciplinary
Authority of the Bank passed the order of punishment imposing
censure against the petitioner vide its order dated 28.07.2015
(Annexure 25B). On 11.05.2016, Prapatra Ka (Anexure 16) was
issued to the petitioner for the charges in relation to EOU PS Case
No 23 of 2012. The petitioner denied the allegation and submitted
his reply to the show cause. However, on 08.09.2022, the
Department has decided to initiate a departmental proceeding
against the petitioner (Annexure 15) for the allegations levelled
Patna High Court CWJC No.15840 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
against him in EOU PS Case No 23 of 2012 dated 20.10.2012.
Hence, this petition.
3 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that criminal proceeding has been initiated in the year, 2012, i e,
prior to the appointment of the petitioner in the Department and,
hence, the appointing authority is not entitled to initiate
departmental proceeding against the petitioner under the CCA
Rules as the petitioner was not the Government servant at the time
of alleged misconduct. It is further submitted that before joining
in the services, the petitioner had informed about pendency of the
said case at the time of document verification. The Government of
Bihar, after getting a report from the EOU about pendency of the
case, had issued appointment letter to the petitioner and thereby
had condoned the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. Thus, they
cannot be allowed to initiate the disciplinary proceeding. If the
criminal proceedings result into conviction of the petitioner then
the present employer is entitled to take necessary action against the
petitioner in exercise of powers under Article 311 of the
Constitution of India. However, before the disposal of the
criminal case, no disciplinary action can be taken in relation to the
conduct prior to the appointment of the petitioner which was duly
disclosed by him. It is further submitted that once the Central
Patna High Court CWJC No.15840 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
Bank of India inflicted the penalty for his implication in the FIR,
for the same charges, he cannot be punished again by the present
employer. It is also submitted that protection of Double-Jeopardy
is applicable even to disciplinary action. Since the petitioner has
faced the disciplinary proceeding for the aforesaid charges, he
cannot be directed to face disciplinary proceeding on the same
charges.
4 Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the
arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5 I have heard learned for both the parties, perused the
documents as well as the counter affidavit and the supplementary
affidavit.
6 Undisputedly the appointment letter was issued in
favour of the petitioner to the post of Dy SP on 05.02.2015 and he
joined his services on 10.02.2015. There is also no dispute on the
point that EOU PS Case No 23 of 2012 dated 20.10.2012 has been
registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Sections 420, 468, 473, 120B of the IPC. At that time, the
petitioner was the employee of the Central Bank of India and
working as Assistant Manager JMG-1.
7 Perusal of the charge sheet served by the Central Bank
of India to the petitioner (Annexure 24) shows that third charge
Patna High Court CWJC No.15840 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
was added to the charge sheet and the Enquiry Officer was
directed to enquire to the third charge also. The third charge
related to the FIR bearing EOU PS Case No 23 of 2012 dated
20.10.2012 registered against the petitioner as well as on the
ground that the petitioner has suppressed the aforesaid fact before
his employer, i e, the Central Bank of India. Perusal of the
punishment order (Annexure 25B) further shows that in the
enquiry, Charge No 3 has been proved and the Disciplinary
Authority, on the basis of enquiry report, passed the order of
punishment, i e, censure against the petitioner. Hence, it is clear
that while the petitioner was employee of the Central Bank of
India, at that time itself, the Central Bank of India initiated the
departmental enquiry against the petitioner related to the FIR
bearing EOU PS Case No 23 of 2012 dated 20.10.2012 and vide
order dated 28.07.2015, he has been punished.
8 Perusal of Annexure 1 further shows that at the time of
document verification, the petitioner had declared that there is one
criminal case pending against him bearing EOU PS Case No 23 of
2012. On the basis of said information, the Home Department
obtained the report from the EOU which was submitted by the
Department on 18.07.2014. Annexure 2 further shows that
petitioner filed a representation before the Home Secretary
Patna High Court CWJC No.15840 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
requesting him to allow to join on the post of Dy SP. Thereafter,
on 05.02.2015 (Annexure 4), appointment letter was issued in
favour of the petitioner. Thus, it is quite clear that the respondents,
after getting a report from the EOU about the pendency of the
case, had issued appointment letter to the petitioner and thereby
they had condoned the alleged misconduct of the petitioner which
has been done by him in the year, 2012, i e, before his joining with
the Respondent-Department. It is not the case of concealment of
any material fact by the petitioner. He fairly, before his joining,
informed about the pendency of the criminal case and on being
satisfied after obtaining the report from the EOU, the appointment
letter has been issued in favour of the petitioner.
9 Undisputedly, the petitioner joined his service on
10.02.2015. The alleged misconduct was done by him on
20.10.2012. The said wrong or misconduct done by the petitioner
was not after his joining with the respondents. Therefore, the
respondents are not entitled to initiate any departmental
proceedings for the misconduct done by the petitioner prior to his
joining with the respondents.
10 Apart from that, bare perusal of the charge sheet
issued by the respondent-Department and the charge sheet issued
by the Central Bank of India, it also appears that Charge No 3,
Patna High Court CWJC No.15840 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
which has been enquired by the Central Bank of India, is identical
to the charges framed by the respondent-Department against the
petitioner. Once, the petitioner has already faced the departmental
enquiry for the said charges before his ex employer, i e, the Central
Bank of India and has already been punished by the then
employer, now he cannot be again punished by the respondents for
the same charges for which he has already been punished. There is
no dispute on the point also that the protection of Double-Jeopardy
is also applicable even to the disciplinary proceedings.
11 Dealing with the issue, the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Kameshwar Singh -Versus- Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation & Others, (1995) 2 BLJR 1204 observed
and held in paragraph 19 as follows:
"19. Reverting to the last point about
the doctrine of Double-Jeopardy. The
proceedings were initiated for the second time
for the period for which misconduct has earlier
been proved, and for the same charges or
misconduct. The petitioner/appellant was re-
employed after first misconduct. In this way
earlier misconduct was condoned. Initiation of
proceedings for the second time in respect for
same period and charges or misconduct was
barred. This was now a fundamental right that
no body would be punished twice for the same
charges or misconduct. It is the Doctrine of
Double-Jeopardy as envisaged under Article 20
(2) of the Constitution of India. The
Respondents were, therefore, not justified in
initiating the proceedings for the second time for
the similar period and for the same misconduct.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15840 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
Further the punishment was not proportionate
to the misconduct if any."
12 Taking into consideration the above, it is clear that
once the petitioner has faced disciplinary proceeding for the same
charges, he cannot be directed to face another disciplinary
proceedings for the same charges.
13 For the reasons, as discussed above, I am of the view
that to continue with the departmental proceeding against the
petitioner is an abuse of the process of Court.
14 Thus, the petition is allowed.
15 The Resolution of the Home Department (Police),
Government of Bihar contained in Circular No 9173 dated
08.09.2022 by which the Government has decided to initiate the
departmental proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 17 (5)
(c) of the Bihar CCA Rules is quashed.
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.08.2025
Transmission Date NA
