Patna High Court
Anil Kumar Lal vs The State Of Bihar on 27 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7118 of 2022
======================================================
Anil Kumar Lal Son of Late Shri Chandrika Prasad Resident of Flat no.201,
Nupur Apartment, Mohalla-Salimpur Ahra, (lane No.-1) Kadamkuan, P.S.-
Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Patna.
4. The Additional Collector, Departmental Proceeding,Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna.
6. Sri Avinash Kumar, Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division,
Kankarbagh, Patna.
7. The Senior Deputy Collector, Patna-Cum-member of three man Committee
Constituted to Make Preliminary Enquiry.
8. The Deputy Collector, Patna-Cum-member of three man Committee
Constituted to Make Preliminary Enquiry.
9. The Secreary, Regional Transport Authority, Patna-Cum-member of three
man Committee Constituted to Make Preliminary Enquiry.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Suryakant Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam (Aag12)
For the SBPDCL : Dr. Anand Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rajan Prakash, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-08-2025
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner for
setting aside the order dated 13.02.2020, Annexure-1 whereby
and whereunder, the petitioner has been dismissed from
services, also under challenge is the order dated 24.03.2022
passed in Service Appeal No. 46 of 2020 by the Commissioner,
Patna Division, Patna whereby the appeal preferred by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7118 of 2022 dt.27-08-2025
2/7
petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Devendra
Kumar gave an application for mutation and fixation of rent
with respect to the landed property situated at Mauja Hanuman
Nagar, in the district of Patna bearing Khata No. 22, Plot Nos.
63, 64 and 72, Area 11 dismill, 20 dismill and 26 dismill
respectively. At that time the petitioner was posted as Revenue
Clerk on 13.07.2016, he submitted his inspection report giving
finding that the property is registered in the name of Birbal S/o
Roopchand in the survey khatian, it was further reported by him
that the said Devendra Kumar is in the possession of the
property and steps can be taken for mutation. The C.O. sent the
records to DCLR for further action and subsequently DCLR on
19.08.2016
allowed the claim of Devendra Kumar, then on
03.09.2016 the C.O. issued orders in favour of said Devendra
Kumar. Subsequently, a claim was made by the Bihar State
Electricity Board that the landed property which is mutated in
the name of Devendra Kumar belongs to the electricity board
where power substation exists. On the basis of said claim, three
men committee was constituted for conducting an inquiry into
the aforesaid mutation by the order of Commissioner. On
22.06.2017, the committee submitted its report, Annexure - 5,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7118 of 2022 dt.27-08-2025
on the same day an FIR has been registered against the
petitioner on the basis of said report of the committee. On
22.06.2017 a measurement report was also submitted by Anchal
Amin, Patna Sadar recording a finding that the disputed
property does not belong to the Power Substation. Subsequently,
charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, four charges were
levelled against him vide Annexure - 10. The inquiry officer
submitted its enquiry report, Annexure - 13 charge nos. 1, 2 and
3 were found proved whereas charge no. 4 was not found
proved. Subsequently, on the basis of said inquiry report second
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which has been
replied by him and vide order dated 13.02.2020 petitioner has
been punished and his service has been dismissed. The appeal
preferred by the petitioner is also rejected, hence this writ
petition.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that no list of witnesses was given along with the
charge memo and no witnesses were examined by the inquiry
officer during course of inquiry to prove the charges. There is no
proof of the contention that the disputed land belongs to the
Government of Bihar. In spite of that the inquiry officer wrongly
arrived on the conclusion that the charge nos. 1, 2 and 3 levelled
Patna High Court CWJC No.7118 of 2022 dt.27-08-2025
against the petitioner are duly proved. According to the counsel
this is a case of no evidence, therefore, the finding as recorded
by the inquiry officer is perverse and bad in law. He further
submits that the presenting officer vide his opinion, Annexure -
12 himself admitted that the landed property is rightly
recommended for mutation after fulfillment of the procedure. It
was further opined by him that the petitioner has made
recommendation in accordance with law and charges are not
proved against him, even after that the inquiry officer found
charges to be proved. It is further submitted by the counsel that
the petitioner has merely made recommendation but the order of
mutation was issued by the C.O. on the directions given by the
DCLR. The order of mutation can be challengable under the
Bihar Land Mutation Act ( Bihar Land Reforms Act) and
therefore, the impugned order of dismissal from service of the
petitioner is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. The Revenue
Clerk had no power to issue orders relating to the mutation or
rent receipts. Reliance had been placed by the counsel upon
Satyendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,
[2024 SCC Online SC 3325], Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab
National Bank, [(2009) 2 SCC 570], State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, [(2010) 2 SCC 772].
Patna High Court CWJC No.7118 of 2022 dt.27-08-2025
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes
the argument raised by the counsel and submits that on the basis
of material available on record the inquiry officer rightly arrived
on the conclusion that the charge nos. 1, 2 and 3 are duly proved
against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority rightly
passed the order of punishment against the petitioner.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the
parties, perused the documents annexed with the petition as well
as the counter affidavits submitted by the respondent-State.
6. Perusal of the charge memo i.e. Annexure - 10
clearly shows that along with charge memo no list of witnesses
was prepared nor provided to the petitioner which has not been
disputed by the respondents. Therefore, there is a clear violation
of Rule 17 (3) of The Bihar Government Servants' Conduct
Rules, 2005.
7. Perusal of the charge memo further shows that
there were four charges made against the petitioner and the
inquiry officer arrived on the conclusion that the charge nos. 1,
2 and 3 are duly proved however, charge no. 4 is not proved.
Perusal of Annexure- 12 dated 01.01.2018 the opinion submitted
by the presenting officer further shows that it was opined by him
that the landed property has rightly been recommended for
Patna High Court CWJC No.7118 of 2022 dt.27-08-2025
mutation after fulfilling of procedures. It was also opined that
the delinquent has made recommendations in accordance with
law and the charges are not true against him. In spite of that the
inquiry officer proceeded further with the inquiry proceeding.
8. Perusal of the inquiry report further shows that
without recording statement of any of the witnesses nor
tendering any document by the department the inquiry officer
arrived on the conclusion that the charges under 1, 2 and 3 as
levelled against the petitioner are duly proved. The finding as
recorded by inquiry officer is not based upon any evidence
available on record rather it is based upon the explanation
submitted by the petitioner only. However, the disciplinary
authority as well as the appellate authority at the time of passing
of their order did not consider these and passed the order of
dismissal and affirmed the order of dismissal of the petitioner.
9. It is a case of no evidence and without any evidence
the inquiry officer wrongly arrived on the conclusion that the
charges levelled against him are duly proved and on the basis of
said faulty inquiry report the disciplinary authority passed the
order of dismissal. Hence, all the impugned orders are liable to
be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 13.02.2020,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7118 of 2022 dt.27-08-2025
Annexure-1 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna and order
dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division,
Patna respectively are hereby set aside. Taking into
consideration the fact that during the pendency of the petition
the petitioner has superannuated from the services, he is entitled
to get entire consequential benefits from the order dated
13.02.2020 till his date of superannuation.
11. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is
allowed.
(Arvind Singh Chandel , J)
Siddharth Soni/-
AFR/NAFR NA
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.08.2025
Transmission Date 29.08.2025
