[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Shreekant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar on 1 December, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18349 of 2022
======================================================
Shreekant Mishra S/o Late Bachchi Kant Mishra, Resident of Mohalla-New
Rajendra Nagar, Madhubani, P.S.-TOP Madhubani (K. Hat), District-Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Transport Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Joint Commissioner cum Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,
Purnea.
6. The District Transport Officer, Katihar.
7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, GP-26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-12-2025
1. Heard Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior
counsel assisted by Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned GP-26 for the
respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application
Patna High Court CWJC No.18349 of 2022 dt.01-12-2025
2/9
praying for setting aside the order contained in Memo no.9126
dated 21.11.2022 issued under the signature of the Deputy
Secretary, Transport Department, Bihar, Patna whereby
punishment of full deduction of pension has been passed under
Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (herein after
referred to as 'the Rules').
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the
petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated 28.3.2018
to which he filed his reply on 8.4.2018. Not finding the reply
filed by the petitioner to be satisfactory, a departmental
proceeding was initiated on 7.8.2018 appointing the Conducting
Officer and the Presenting Officer in the case. As in the
meantime the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2019, the
proceedings were converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the
Rules.
4. The Conducting Officer-cum-Joint Commissioner
-cum-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Purnea
submitted his enquiry report finding the charge nos.1, 3 and 4 to
have been proved whereas charge no.2 not to be proved.
5. The petitioner was served with a copy of the
enquiry report on 13.7.2022 to which he submitted his reply on
27.7.2022
.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18349 of 2022 dt.01-12-2025
6. Having considered the contents of the enquiry
report wherein three out of the four charges had been proved
and not being satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner, the
Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, Bihar, Patna was
pleased to pass the order of punishment dated 21.11.2022
against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the
Rules, fully deducting the pension.
7. It is against this order of punishment dated
21.11.2022 that the instant application has been preferred by the
petitioner for the relief prayed for as stated herein above.
8. It is submitted by Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner
had been proceeded against for same/similar charges on earlier
occasion also. First time the charges were enquired into by the
respondent authorities, an enquiry report dated 4.12.2013
(Annexure-4) was submitted not finding the charges/allegations
to have been proved. It is further submitted that for the same
charges once again another enquiry was started which also
ended with the submission of the report dated 29.1.2020, once
again not finding the allegations against the petitioner to have
been proved. Learned Senior counsel further submits that so far
as reference to the criminal miscellaneous case is concerned i.e.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18349 of 2022 dt.01-12-2025
Vigilance P.S. Case no.66 of 2017 registered on 30.8.2017, the
petitioner has been acquitted in the said case and a copy of the
judgment is Annexure-8 to the petition. Further in reference to
the order of punishment, it is submitted that it is an absolutely
non-speaking order, with the Disciplinary Authority not having
taken into account nor having dealt with any of the defense
raised by the petitioner. The order suffers from non-application
of mind.
9. It is lastly submitted that that on perusal of the
enquiry report wherein as per the Enquiry Officer, three of the
charges have been proved it would transpire that not a single
witness was examined on behalf of the Management and
consequently no document exhibited was proved. It is thus a
case of no evidence against the petitioner. Reliance has been
placed on the judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs.
Punjab National Bank & Ors.; (2009) 2 SCC 570. It is thus
prayed that the order of punishment cannot be sustained, the
same be set aside and the writ application be allowed.
10. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. It is submitted that in a properly
conducted departmental proceeding, three out of the four
charges were proved as per the enquiry report submitted by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18349 of 2022 dt.01-12-2025
Enquiry Officer. It is further submitted that the allegations
against the petitioner are very serious and the allegations reflect
of the Office of the District Transport Office being involved in
corrupt practice. Learned counsel further submitted that the
petitioner was reported to have demanded bribe in distribution
of Learning License and in this manner, having misused the
post, had earned property disproportionate to his known source
of income. It is for this reason that several vigilance cases had
been registered against him and had also gone to trial.
11. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the respondents.
12. The relevant facts in brief are that a departmental
proceeding was started against the petitioner on 7.8.2018 and
after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner,
the Enquiry Officer came to submit the enquiry report on
15.6.2022, a copy of which has been brought on record as
Annexure-6 to the writ application. In the enquiry report while
charge no.2 was not found to be proved, charge nos.1, 3 and 4
were found to be proved against the petitioner.
13. On perusal of the contents of the enquiry report it
transpires that not a single witness was examined on behalf of
the Management to prove the charges levelled against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18349 of 2022 dt.01-12-2025
petitioner. The Conducting Officer in considering the merits of
the charges has proceeded to take into consideration the
vigilance case filed against the petitioner in the years 2009,
2013 and 2017 for having assets disproportionate to his known
source of income. The Enquiry Officer further proceeds to
observe that while the petitioner has stated about having
obtained a loan to the tune of Rs.14.75 lacs from the bank for
the education of his children, however he has not given the
details of the amount of loan and the time when the same was
taken. The Enquiry Officer further proceeds to give details of
the Vigilance P.S. Case no.66 of 2017 and the enquiry report
with respect to the disproportionate assets of the petitioner
enclosed with the said F.I.R. On the basis of these documents,
he proceeds to come to the conclusion in his enquiry report that
the charge nos.1, 3 and 4 were proved.
14. It may be mentioned here that no witness was
examined in course of enquiry before the Enquiry Officer and
consequently no document marked exhibit nor proved.
15. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :-
"14. Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The
enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial
Patna High Court CWJC No.18349 of 2022 dt.01-12-2025
function. The charges levelled against the
delinquent officer must be found to have been
proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to
arrive at a finding upon taking into
consideration the materials brought on record
by the parties. The purported evidence
collected during investigation by the
investigating officer against all the accused
by itself could not be treated to be evidence in
the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was
examined to prove the said documents. The
management witnesses merely tendered the
documents and did not prove the contents
thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the
enquiry officer on the FIR which could not
have been treated as evidence."
16. Further a Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Devendra Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (judgment
dated 19.10.2023 passed in LPA no.1302 of 2017), following
Roop Singh Negi (supra) observed as follows :-
"7. As has been held in Roop Singh
Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others;
(2009) 2 SCC 570, the documents produced in
a departmental inquiry has to be proved by
examining witnesses. Even an F.I.R. was held
to be not evidence by itself without actual
proof of facts stated therein. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court had also held that even an
admission or confession to the police itself is
Patna High Court CWJC No.18349 of 2022 dt.01-12-2025
not sufficient to find the delinquent employee
guilty in a departmental proceeding if no
evidence is brought on record to prove the
offence or misconduct alleged. Departmental
inquiry was held to be a quasi-judicial
proceeding and the Inquiry Officer functions
in the status of a quasi-judicial authority. Not
only should evidence be led in a departmental
inquiry, the conclusions arrived at should be
based on evidence which brings forth a
probability that the delinquent has committed
the misconduct alleged and charged against
him. No Inquiry Report based on conjectures
and surmises can be sustained and even in a
departmental inquiry, the standard of proof is
not a mere suspicion. However high the
degree of suspicion is, it cannot be a
substitute for legal proof."
17. So far as the facts of the instant case is concerned,
the enquiry report clearly not mentioning about the examination
of any witness nor any of the documents relied upon by the
Enquiry Officer having been proved by any witness nor marked
an exhibit, in the opinion of the Court, the whole of the
departmental proceeding was vitiated.
18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
order of punishment contained in Memo no.9126 dated
21.11.2022 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18349 of 2022 dt.01-12-2025
Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, Bihar, Patna cannot be
sustained and is set aside.
19. The writ application is allowed with all
consequential benefits.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 01.12.2025
Transmission Date N/A
