Patna High Court
Nupul Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 27 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10021 of 2022
======================================================
Nupul Kumari Wife of Late Brajesh Kumar, resident of Village - Nawada,
Jaitpur, P.S. - Suraiya, O.P. Jaitpur, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Regiona Muzaffarpur.
4. The Deputy Inspector General Champaran Region, Betiah, West Champaran.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Bagaha, West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahasweta Chatterjee
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kumar (GP4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents-State.
2. This writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioner seeking following relief/reliefs:-
(i) That an appropriate writ
may be issued quashing the
order vide Memo no. 1460
dated 06.08.2018, as
contained in Annexure-8
whereby and whereunder the
Superintendent of Police the
Respondent no. 5 has
Patna High Court CWJC No.10021 of 2022 dt.27-08-2025
2/8
dismissed the husband of the
petitioner from service in a
departmental proceeding
and also held that the
husband of the petitioner is
not entitled to any benefit
excepting the subsistence
allowance during the period
of suspensions.
(ii) That an appropriate writ
may be issued quashing the
order passed by the
Respondent no. 4 the Deputy
Inspector General
Champaran Region Betiah
as contained in Annexure-9
whereby and where under
the Respondent no.4 has
dismissed the appeal filed by
the husband of the
petitioner.
(iii) That an appropriate writ
may be issued quashing the
order dated 27.09.2019 as
contained in Annexure-11)
passed by the Inspector
General of Police, Bihar,
Patna dismissing the
memorial filed by the
husband of the petitioner.
(iv) That an appropriate writ
may be issued commanding
upon the respondent
authority to grant the
petitioner all consequential
benefit like paying the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10021 of 2022 dt.27-08-2025
3/8
petitioner fully salary from
06.08.2018
to 23.02.2022
and the benefits payable to
the husband of the petitioner
including considering to
appointment the petitioner
on compassionate ground
after quashing the orders
dated 06.08.2018,
11.12.2018, and 27.09.2019
as contained in Annexure -8,
9 and 11 of the petition.
(v) any other relief/reliefs
may be granted for which
the petitioner is found
entitled to.
3. The fact of the case is that the husband of the
petitioner late Brajesh Kumar was appointed as Constable on
compassionate ground. On 08.05.2017, he along with others
were sent for training to Gaya. On 11.07.2017, when all the
trainees including Brajesh Kumar were returning to Bagaha
after completion of training by Government vehicle, allegedly
he left the vehicle at Muzaffarpur. At that time, he handed over
the service pistol to another trainee Pramod Kumar.
Subsequently, he did not return on that date. It is further alleged
that on 12.07.2017, the said Brajesh Kumar was found in
drunken condition in the train. He was found committing
misbehaved with one passenger Rakhi Kumari. On the basis of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10021 of 2022 dt.27-08-2025
the complaint made by Rakhi Kumari, the Brajesh Kumar was
taken in custody. On his examination, it was found that he was
in drunken condition. Rail P.S. Case No. 93 of 2017 dated
13.07.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504,
506 of the IPC and 37(B) of the Prohibition of Excise Act has
been registered against him. Subsequently, the departmental
charge sheet has also been issued to him vide Annexure-2. The
enquiry officer submits its enquiry report (Annexure-5) wherein
it was found by him that the charges levelled against the
petitioner are duly proved. On the basis of said enquiry report,
the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal vide its
order dated 06.08.2018 (Annexure-8). The appeal preferred by
the husband of the petitioner Brajesh Kumar has also been
rejected vide its order dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure-9) and
subsequently, memorial has also been rejected vide Annexure-
11. The Brajesh Kumar filed a petition being C.W.J.C.
No.17321 of 2019 before this Court. During pendency of the
said writ petition, the husband of the petitioner Brajesh Kumar
died on 23.02.2022. One Interlocutory Application No. 03 of
2022 was filed in C.W.J.C. No. 17321 of 2019 for substitution
of his wife i.e. the petitioner herein. On 21.04.2022, C.W.J.C.
No. 17321 of 2019 has been disposed of giving liberty to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10021 of 2022 dt.27-08-2025
petitioner to file a fresh petition challenging the all orders as
mentioned herein above. Hence, this petition has been filed by
the wife of the petitioner Brajesh Kumar.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
along with the charge memo, there were four witnesses cited by
the department as departmental witnesses. However, the
material witnesses i.e. Rakhi Kumari and the doctor, who
conducted the medical examination of the husband of the
petitioner, were not cited as witness nor were examined during
course of enquiry. It is further submitted by the counsel that as
contained in the enquiry report, it appears that the written
statement of four witnesses were taken on record by the enquiry
officer, however, no opportunity of cross-examination of those
witnesses were provided to the delinquent Brajesh Kumar. It is
further submitted by the counsel that enquiry report further
shows that instead of cross-examination of the departmental
witnesses, the presenting officer cross-examined the delinquent
employee Brajesh Kumar, which is also not permissible.
Therefore, the enquiry report and on the basis of said enquiry
report, the order of punishment, which has also been approved
by the authorities, are liable to be set aside.
5. Counsel for the respondents-State opposes the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10021 of 2022 dt.27-08-2025
arguments raised by the counsel and submits that ample
opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses has been
provided to the petitioner but he did not cross-examine any of
the witnesses. Therefore, the enquiry officer rightly arrived at
the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are
duly proved.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the
parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition as
well as counter affidavit submitted on behalf of the respondents-
State.
7. Taking into consideration the charges levelled
against the husband of the petitioner, the material and important
witnesses were the Rakhi Kumari and Doctor, who examined
the petitioner on the basis of which it was found that he was
found in drunken condition. However, both Rakhi Kumari and
the said doctor were not cited as witness nor examined during
course of enquiry. In spite of that, the enquiry officer arrived at
the conclusion that the charges levelled against the husband of
the petitioner are duly proved.
8. Perusal of the enquiry report further shows that
though four witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer but
opportunity of cross-examination of those witnesses were not
Patna High Court CWJC No.10021 of 2022 dt.27-08-2025
provided to the petitioner. It also appears that the statements of
the witnesses were not recorded by the enquiry officer himself
rather their written statements were brought on record by the
presenting officer and without giving any opportunity of cross-
examination of those witnesses, the enquiry officer on the basis
of said written statements of the witnesses arrived at the
conclusion that the charges levelled against the husband of the
petitioner Brajesh Kumar are duly proved.
9. Taking into consideration the above, it is clear that
the material witnesses were not examined by the department.
Further the witnesses, who were examined by the enquiry
officer, have not been cross-examined by the delinquent.
Opportunity of cross-examination has also not been given and
provided to him. Virtually, it is a case of no evidence. In spite of
that, the enquiry officer wrongly arrived at the conclusion that
the charges levelled against the delinquent are duly proved. The
disciplinary authority and the authority who dismissed the
memorial have also not considered these aspects. Therefore, all
the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
10. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed.
11. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated
06.08.2018 (Annexure-8), 11.12.2018 (Annexure-9) and
Patna High Court CWJC No.10021 of 2022 dt.27-08-2025
27.09.2019 (Annexure-11) are hereby set aside. The petitioner,
who is wife of the delinquent, is directed to get all consequential
benefits like full salary of the delinquent from 06.08.2018 to
23.02.2022 and other applicable benefits. It will be done by the
Respondents within three months from today.
(Arvind Singh Chandel , J)
shailendra/-
AFR/NAFR NA
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.08.2025
Transmission Date NA
