[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Dilendra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 December, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10173 of 2023
======================================================
Dilendra Kumar (Retired Deputy Director Welfare, Officer-in-charge,
Darbhanga Subdivision) Son of Late Ganga Prasad, aged about 62 years,
Gender-Male, Resident of Peshour, P.O. - Peshour, District- Nalanda, Rahui,
Bihar. Present Address - Shanti Shri Apartment, Adarsh Bihar Colony, gali
No. - 2, P.O. - Rukanpura, Police Station - Rupashpur, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes welfare Department,
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Joint Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes welfare
Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Welfare
Department, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Deputy Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes welfare
Department, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Under Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes welfare
Department, Bihar, Patna.
7. The Director, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes welfare Department,
Bihar, Patna.
8. The Sectional Officer, Section 3 G, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
welfare Department, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate
Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Srishti Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Raisul Haque, SC- 10
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025
2/9
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-12-2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application
praying for setting aside the order contained in Memo no. 1996
dated 26.5.2023 issued under the signature of the Deputy
Secretary, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare
Department, Government of Bihar imposing the punishment of
deduction of 100% pension on the petitioner.
3. The relevant facts in brief are that while the
petitioner was posted as the District Welfare Officer In-charge
of District Arwal, he was proceeded against in a departmental
proceeding with the memo of charge having been served on him
on 28.4.2021. He submitted his reply.
4. In the meantime, the petitioner having retired
from service on 31.12.2021, by order dated 28.3.2022 the
proceedings were converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the
Bihar Pension Rules. After conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry
Officer submitted the inquiry report on 21.2.2023 finding all the
charges to have been proved against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner was served with a copy of the
inquiry report to which he submitted his reply. The respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025
3/9
authority thereafter came out with the order of punishment
contained in Memo no. 1996 dated 26.5.2023 issued under the
signature of the Deputy Secretary, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department, Government of Bihar
imposing the punishment of 100% deduction of pension on the
petitioner. It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred
the instant writ application.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that besides the petitioner having a good case on
merits, so far as the inquiry report is concerned, which has been
brought on record as Annexure-13 to the writ application, it is
not in dispute that not a single witness was examined on behalf
of the management. Further no document was proved by any
witness and none was marked as an exhibit. Nevertheless, the
Inquiry Officer having come to the conclusion that the charges
levelled against the petitioner were proved is absolutely
erroneous.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that for the same set of allegations inquiry has been
conducted against the petitioner on earlier occasion also and the
petitioner was exonerated therein. The proceeding being one
under Rule 43(b), it could not have been for an event which
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025
4/9
took place more than four years before the institution of the
proceeding. It is also submitted that the order under Rule 43(b)
should have been passed by the State Government or even after
the amendment either by the Secretary or the Principal
Secretary. It is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and
as such, the order of punishment cannot be sustained. It is
prayed that the order of punishment be set aside and the writ
application be allowed.
8. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. It is submitted that in terms of
Rule 43(b), proceedings having been initiated prior to the
retirement of the petitioner, there is no bar of the period of four
years. It is further submitted that as per instructions received
and being brought on record in the counter affidavit, copy of
which has been served on learned counsel for the petitioner, it is
the Secretary/Principal Secretary who has passed the order of
punishment in the files, though it is the Deputy Secretary under
whose signature the order impugned dated 26.5.2023
(Annexure-1) has been issued. It is submitted that there is no
procedural irregularity in the proceedings carried out against the
petitioner. The petitioner has not made out a case for
interference in the order by the Court and as such, the writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025
5/9
application be dismissed.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
10. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner
was served with the memo of charge on 28.4.2021 and with the
same the departmental proceeding commenced. The petitioner
submitted his reply to the same before the Inquiry Officer.
11. It was during pendency of the departmental
proceedings that the petitioner retired on 31.12.2021 whereafter
the proceedings were converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the
Bihar Pension Rules.
12. The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report
on 21.2.2023 (Annexure-14), a copy of which was served on the
petitioner to which he filed his reply.
13. Thereafter, the respondents came out with the
order of punishment contained in Memo no. 1996 dated
26.5.2023
under the signature of the Deputy Secretary,
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department
imposing the punishment of deduction of full pension to the
tune of 100%.
14. Having perused the contents of the inquiry
report, it transpires that the Inquiry Officer has taken into
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025
consideration the allegations levelled in the memo of charge, the
documents/reports referred to in support of the allegations and
the past conduct of the petitioner. On perusal of the inquiry
report, it transpires that it is not in dispute that no witness has
been examined in course of the inquiry. Consequently, none of
the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer has either been
proved by any person nor has the same been marked exhibit.
Instead the Inquiry Officer has proceeded to shift the onus on
the delinquent petitioner in not giving satisfactory reply in
rebuttal to the charge levelled against him in the proceeding.
The Inquiry Officer observes in the report that as the petitioner
has not furnished documents in support of his defence, the
allegations stand substantiated and proved against the petitioner.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.; (2009) 2
SCC 570 held as follows:
"14. Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding.
The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025
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 not sufficient to find the
delinquent employee guilty in a
departmental proceeding if no evidence is
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025
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 inquiry report clearly not mentioning about the examination
of any witness nor any of the documents relied upon by the
Inquiry 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. 1996 dated
26.5.2023 (Annexure-1) issued under the signature of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2023 dt.04-12-2025
Deputy Secretary, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Welfare Department, Government of Bihar cannot be sustained
and is set aside.
19. The writ application is allowed with all
consequential benefits.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 4.12.2025
Transmission Date NA
