[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Md. Jamaluddin Ansari vs The State Of Bihar on 8 December, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.516 of 2022
======================================================
Md. Jamaluddin Ansari Son of Ali Haider Ansari, Resident of Mohalla -
Hinduni Tola, Azad Nagar, P.O. - Phulwari Sharif, P.S. - Phulwari Sharif,
District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Service, Home Department
(Prisons), Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Bihar Institute of Correctional Administration, Vaishali at
Hajipur.
5. The Special Secretary - Cum - Inquiry Officer, Minor Water Resource
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ali Muqtadin Ahmad, Advocate
Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Advocate General
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-12-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
For quashing the order
issued vide Memo No. 16/ववववध-07-
05/19 General Administration 4914,
Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2022 dt.08-12-2025
2/7
Patna dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure-
11) by the Respondent No. 2 whereby
and where under the petitioner has
been imposed with the following
punishment :-
a. Withholding of two
increments of pay with cumulative
effect.
b. Censure for the period
of occurrence (2019-20).
ii. For quashing the
order bearing Memo No. 16/ ववववध-
07-05/19
General Administration
14179, Patna dated 30.11.2021
(Annexure-14) whereby and
whereunder the review petition dated
18.08.2021 filed by the petitioner
against the punishment order dated
13.04.2021 has been rejected.
iii. The Petitioner further
prays for issuance of writ/ writs,
order/orders, direction/directions for
the relief/reliefs which the Petitioner
is entitled to in the fact and
circumstances of the present case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the present case is the result of professional jealousy in the
office, between the staff members. He further submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2022 dt.08-12-2025
petitioner became the scapegoat for a work which he had done
unintentionally. He further submits that in the findings it has
come that he has been punished only and only due to the reason
that he had sent a staff member for the mobile phone of female
Staff-A, but the said staff, due to the unavailability of female
Staff-A, demanded the mobile phone of female Staff-B, for
which the petitioner had already excused then and there. Even
then, the higher authority has taken action and imposed
punishment for the same.
4. He further submits that, according to him, the
person who made the allegation against the petitioner, as
mentioned in the charge memo, has not been examined or cross-
examined. He further submits that the sole basis of his
punishment is the recording made on another mobile phone,
which was subjected to a forensic laboratory report in which his
voice was attempted to be proved. He further submits that both
minor and major punishments were imposed together.
5. He further submits that the alleged wrong is not
of such high gravity that he should have been imposed major
punishment, and this aspect has neither been considered by the
disciplinary authority nor by the appellate authority. He further
submits that the wrong alleged to have been committed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2022 dt.08-12-2025
petitioner and the punishment imposed are excessive in nature,
and, therefore, a sympathetic view may be taken into
consideration as the petitioner is at recurring loss in his career.
6. Counsel further relied on the judgment dated
28.07.2025 passed in CWJC No. 23825 of 2013 and submits
that this judgment has been passed by this Court relying on the
judgment in Union of India & Anr. v. S.C. Parashar, reported
in (2006) 3 SCC 167, and submits that the ratio laid down in the
case is that major and minor penalties cannot be imposed
simultaneously, and therefore, submits that the writ petition be
allowed in his favour.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that
the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the
appellate authority is completely in accordance with law. He
further submits that there is no procedural mistake nor any
violation of natural justice. He further submits that the
punishment imposed is also not excessive and is a balanced one.
8. After going through the records of this case in
comparison to the judgment on which the counsel for the
petitioner relied, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment,
i.e., para 8 of Union of India & Anr. v. S.C. Parashar (supra), is
most relevant, which states as follows:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2022 dt.08-12-2025
"8. It is not in dispute
that Sub-rules (iii) and (iii) (a) of Rule
11 provide for minor penalties
whereas Clause (v) thereof provides
for major penalty. Indisputably the
procedure adopted in the
departmental proceeding was for
imposition of a major penalty. It is
trite that even in a case where the
procedure followed in the
departmental proceedings for
imposition of a major penalty, having
regard to the facts and circumstances
of a case, minor penalty can also be
imposed. The question is as to
whether the penalty imposed by the
President upon taking into
consideration the report filed by the
Enquiry Officer, was under Clauses
(iii) and (iii) (a) or Clause (v) of Rule
11 of the CCS Rules."
9. Here, in the case on which the counsel for the
petitioner relied, the enquiry officer had exonerated the
petitioner, but in the present case the enquiry officer has not
exonerated the petitioner, rather, he has held him guilty only and
only to a very limited extent, namely, that the petitioner had
demanded the personal mobile phone through another person
from the complainant. However, the witness, Mr. Bindeshar
Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2022 dt.08-12-2025
Paswan, himself submits that the mobile phone which was said
to have been demanded by the petitioner from the officer was
not actually demanded by the petitioner rather, due to the
absence of the said officer, he himself demanded it from the
complainant. It is basically a mistake on the part of Bindeshar
Paswan, a supporting staff of the office.
10. In light of the facts and circumstances, it
transpires to this Court that there is no direct allegation against
the petitioner that he has committed such wrong for which he
has been given the major penalty, and it is for this reason this
Court is of the firm view that the major penalty, by virtue of the
charge, is extremely excessive. Therefore, the major penalty is
hereby modified to withholding of two increments of pay only
for two years, and the cumulative effect is hereby removed from
the punishment.
11. It is made clear that the period of censure has
already been crossed, therefore, this Court has not given its
finding on that part.
12. It is made clear that such observation shall not
come in the way of the petitioner's promotion and payment of
his arrears in the calculation of his eligibility to receive
payment, which has not been made earlier due to the major
Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2022 dt.08-12-2025
penalty.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby
disposed off with the aforesaid modification.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.12.2025
Transmission Date NA
