Satyendra Nath Lal vs The State Of Bihar
2025 Latest Caselaw 1670 Patna

Patna High Court

Satyendra Nath Lal vs The State Of Bihar on 7 February, 2025

Author: Harish Kumar

Bench: Harish Kumar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5758 of 2020
     ======================================================
     Satyendra Nath Lal, Son of Late Keshab Prasad Lal, Resident of Flat No. 202,
     'B' Block Jagmano Shree Garden, Mohalla Ved Nagar, P.S. Rupaspur, Town
     and District: Patna.
                                                                 ... ... Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.    The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
      Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Appellate Authority cum Minister, Department of Revenue and Land
     Reforms.
3.   The Divisional Commissioner, Patna.
4.   The District Magistrate, Patna.
5.   The Additional Collector cum Inquiring Officer, Patna.
6.   The Senior Deputy Collector, Patna.
                                               ... ... Respondents
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Akhilesh Dutta Verma, Advocate
     For the State          :      Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
     CAV JUDGMENT
      Date : 07-02-2025

                    This Court has heard Mr. Akhilesh Dutta Verma,

      learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Navneet Kumar,

      learned Advocate for the State.

                    2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated

      07.09.2018

as contained in Memo No. 782 (Annexure-26),

whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from his services

based upon the findings of the departmental enquiry. The

Service Appeal bearing no. 27 of 2018-19 preferred by the

petitioner also came to be rejected vide order dated 20.02.2020

by the Minister-cum-Appellate Authority, Department of Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

Revenue, Government of Bihar (Annexure-28), which order is

also put to challenge in the present writ petition.

3. The brief summary of the facts as culled out from

the materials available on record, are enumerated hereinbelow:

(i) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant

Consolidation Officer in the year 1991. On abolition of the

Department of Consolidation, service of the petitioner was

transferred to Department of Revenue and he was posted as

Circle Inspector. While the petitioner was posted as Circle

Inspector, Maner, he received a letter on 19.03.2008 by Circle

Officer, Maner endorsed to Halka Karamchari, Shri Chandresh

Rajak along with a complaint of villagers of Maner regarding

unauthorized filling up a pond situated at Maner Bazar for

grabbing the same.

(ii) An enquiry was conducted with respect to the land

in question appertaining to Thana No. 34, Khata No. 587, Plot

No. 189 area 0.85 decimal and Khata No. 587, Plot No. 190,

Area 2.61 decimal. After due verification and enquiry, a report

was submitted on 27.03.2008 that both the plots of the land in

question are recorded in Survey Khatiyan in the nature of

Gairmazarua Mallik (Bhind Pokhar Kazi Talab).

(iii) The petitioner being Circle Inspector, on Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

verification of the record, reported to the Circle Officer, Maner

on 27.03.2008 that the land in question was Gairmazarua Mallik

as per the Survey Khatiyan.

(iv) On 04.05.2008, one Navnit Sinha, lodged a

complaint before the SHO, Vigilance alleging therein that the

land in question is Khatiyani land and has been coming in his

possession. However, when he was engaged in developing the

land in question, the petitioner along with Halka Karamchari

and the Circle Officer restrained him to do the work and

demanded Rs.8,00,000/-(eight lakh).

(v) On the basis of such complaint, a trap team was

constituted and the petitioner was apprehended on 04.05.2008

while accepting a bribe of Rs.50,000/-, leading to institution of

Vigilance P.S. Case No. 22 of 2008 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; the petitioner was taken

into judicial custody and sent to jail.

(vi) In the aforesaid premise, the petitioner was put

under suspension w.e.f. 04.05.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner

released from the judicial custody on 08.08.2008. The petitioner

submitted his joining on 12.08.2008 before the Divisional

Commissioner, Patna. The joining of the petitioner was accepted and Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

he was posted at Survey Office, Patna.

(vii) On 14.02.2014, the petitioner was again placed

under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding

and a memo of charge (Prapatra 'K') served upon him on

26.03.2014 under the signature of the District Magistrate, Patna.

Further the Principal Secretary issued another letter on

26.04.2014 annexing the memo of charge duly issued by the

District Magistrate, Patna. The Additional Collector

(Departmental Enquiry) was appointed as Conducting Officer

and a request was made to the District Magistrate to appoint a

Presenting Officer at his own level. On a request made by the

Conducting Officer, the Deputy Collector, Establishment was

appointed as a Presenting Officer. Whereupon a show-cause

explanation was asked from the petitioner annexing the memo

of charge. In response thereto, the petitioner filed a petition on

05.05.2014 and prayed for providing the copy of the relevant

documents in relation to the charges levelled against him. The

Conducting Officer directed the Presenting Officer for

supplying the relevant documents. In response to the direction

afore-noted, the Presenting Officer supplied the complaint

petition of the complainant, pre-trap memo, post trap memo,

photocopy of the case diary and statement of Prakash Nath Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

Mishra, the then SHO Vigilance, Police, to the petitioner. The

petitioner further requested for supply of the document related

to the memo of charge and list of witnesses on 21.05.2014. The

petitioner also filed several petitions as has been disclosed in the

writ petition for supply of necessary relevant papers in order to

submit his effective show-cause explanation. However, those

papers could not be supplied to the petitioner and finally the

petitioner has submitted his detailed show-cause reply on

12.07.2014, denying all the charges.

(viii) The Conducting Officer after completion of the

enquiry, found the charges proved against the petitioner and

submitted the enquiry report dated 13.10.2014 to the

disciplinary authority. The petitioner was served with a second

show-cause notice by the disciplinary authority on 21.11.2014.

The petitioner submitted his response to the second show-cause

notice refuting all the allegations and the opinion expressed by

the Conducting Officer. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority

passed the impugned order of punishment and dismissed the

services of the petitioner vide Memo No. 782 dated 07.09.2018.

(ix) The petitioner, aggrieved with the impugned order

of punishment, preferred Service Appeal No. 27 of 2018 before

the Appellate Authority-cum-Minister, Department of Revenue, Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

Government of Bihar, which came to be rejected vide order

dated 20.02.2020.

4. Mr. Verma, learned Advocate for the petitioner

while assailing the impugned order has submitted that much

prior to the complaint filed by the complainant Navnit Sinha,

Halka Karamchari and the petitioner reported to the Circle

Officer about the nature of the land in question as Gairmazarua

Mallik. Thus, there was no occasion either for the Halka

Karamchari or the petitioner to demand and accept Rs.50,000/-

as a bribe money. The matter was also inquired by the Deputy

Collector Land Reforms, Danapur, who submitted his report to

the S.D.O., Danapur that the land in question was not the

Khatiyani land of the complainant and it is the clandestine move

of the complainant to grab the land, which resulted into

initiation of a proceeding under Sections 144/145 of the CrPC.

The land in question was duly attached and Officer in-charge,

Maner P.S. was appointed as a receiver of the said plot. On a

report submitted by the S.D.O., Danapur, a Jamabandi

Cancellation Case No. 87/2014-15 was initiated against the

complainant and vide order dated 16.05.2016, the said

Jamabandi was cancelled by the Additional District Collector,

Patna. Referring to the aforesaid fact, it is contended that at no Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

point of time, either the petitioner has made any collusive report

in order to extend the benefit to the complainant or he being

Circle Inspector was anyhow responsible for either mutation or

Jamabandi.

5. After taking this Court through the memo of charge

and the enquiry report, learned Advocate for the petitioner

further contended that the District Magistrate, Patna was neither

the appointing authority of the petitioner nor his disciplinary

authority and, as such, the issuance of the memo of charge by

him was wholly without jurisdiction. Moreover, the

departmental proceeding was initiated without holding any

preliminary enquiry and asking any show-cause to the petitioner

contrary to the provisions of the Bihar Government Servants

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for short 'the

Rules, 2005'). It is further contended that the memo of charge as

contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition is not in

consonance with rule 17(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2005,

inasmuch as there is no list of witnesses. The necessary relevant

documents in relation to the charges have also not been supplied

to the petitioner and thus he has been deprived from fair

opportunity of hearing. Without furnishing the necessary

papers/documents, the petitioner was compelled to file his Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

show-cause explanation, though the same has been filed but it

has not been taken into consideration by the Conducting Officer

while holding the charges proved against the petitioner.

6. The Enquiry Officer admitted the fact that the

petitioner has rightly submitted his report showing the land in

question as Gairmazarua Mallik and, prima facie, it appears that

on protest being made by the petitioner and other State officials,

the complainant had filed such complaint but from the aforesaid

fact, no conclusion can be drawn that no demand has been made

by the petitioner when from the materials and evidence clearly

show that the petitioner was apprehended by the trap team while

accepting bribe. Based upon the aforesaid fact, the Enquiry

Officer has submitted the report. There is no witness, much less

even the complainant and the members of the trap team were

examined by the department to prove the charges. Heavy

reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab

National Bank and Others [(2009) 2 SCC 570]. Reliance has

also been placed on a decision rendered by this Court in the

cases of Vijendra Prasad v. State of Bihar and Others [2019

BLJ 6 751] and Arun Kumar v. State of Bihar and Others

[2019 BLJ 3 221] that any disciplinary proceeding without Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

following the statutory provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005,

the same is unsustainable and the impugned orders of

punishment are fit to be set aside.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner also contended

that the disciplinary authority has failed to consider the show-

cause explanation filed by the petitioner before inflicting the

major punishment of dismissal and only affirm the

recommendation of the Conducting Officer. There is no

application of mind and the impugned order is perverse, rest

upon no evidence; similar mistake has been done by the

appellate authority while dismissing the memo of appeal

preferred by the petitioner. It is lastly contended that the

respondent authorities have completely failed to follow the

prescriptions provided under Rules, 2005, especially Rules, 14,

15, 17 and 18 thereof.

8. While summing up the submissions, learned

Advocate for the petitioner further contended that now the

petitioner has already superannuated on 29.02.2020 and, as

such, if the case of the petitioner finds favour, it ought not to be

remanded for the purposes of fresh enquiry or departmental

proceeding. To support the aforesaid contention, reliance has

also been placed on the decisions rendered by the learned Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 389 of 2024 [Ram

Lagan Ram v. The State of Bihar and Others] and further in

L.P.A. No. 446 of 2024 [The State of Bihar and Others v.

Vikash Kumar @ Vikas Kumar].

9. Mr. Naveneet Kumar, learned Advocate for the

State, per contra, submitted that it is an open and shut case. The

petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the bribe of

Rs.50,000/- from the complainant. Before initiation of the

departmental proceeding, deliberation was done at the level of

the department and whereupon the proceeding was initiated

after issuance of proper memo of charge under Rule 17(2) of the

Rules, 2005. The Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer

were duly appointed and the petitioner has been handed over

necessary documents and has also been given proper

opportunity of hearing. After thorough enquiry, the Enquiry

Officer found the charges proved against the petitioner.

Whereupon, the petitioner has been served with second show-

cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report vide letter

no. 820 dated 21.11.2014. The second show-cause reply of the

petitioner was duly considered by the disciplinary authority and

on being found the petitioner guilty for the charges levelled

against him, inflicted with the punishment of dismissal with a Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

clear observation that the petitioner shall not be eligible for any

further employment. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also

did not find any merit and it has rightly been rejected.

Submitting the aforesaid facts, it is contended that the impugned

orders do not require any interference, as the same has been

passed by following all the procedures and giving proper

opportunity of hearing.

10. This Court has anxiously heard the submissions

advanced on behalf of the learned Advocates for the parties and

meticulously perused the materials available on record.

11. Before parting with this case, it would be apt and

proper to highlight the mandatory prescriptions of the Rules,

2005, which are required to be followed in a departmental

enquiry/proceeding.

12. Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005 prescribes the

procedure for imposing major penalties. Rule 17(1) and (2)

obligate the Disciplinary Authority that no order imposing any

of the penalties specified in rule 14 shall be made without

holding an enquiry, in the manner provided in these rules. If

disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for

inquiring about the truth of any imputation of misconduct or

misbehaviour against a government servant, he may himself Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

inquire into it, or appoint under these Rules an authority to

inquire about the truth thereof. Rule 17(3) further directs that in

order to hold an inquiry against a government servant under this

Rule, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be

drawn up the substance of the imputations of misconduct or

misbehaviour as a definite and distinct article of charge to

support each article of charge. Memo of charge shall contain a

list of such documents by which and a list of such witnesses by

whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. A

copy of article of charge with the statement of imputation of

misconduct or misbehaviour and list of documents and

witnesses shall be delivered to the government servant with a

direction to submit written statement of his/her defence. The

duty is also cast upon the enquiring authority to produce the

necessary documents to the delinquent provided that the

enquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in

writing, refuse to requisition such of the documents as are, in its

opinion, not relevant to the case.

13. Suffice it to observe that Rule 17(5) of the Rules,

2005 clearly mandates that on receipt of the written statement of

defence, the disciplinary authority may himself inquire into such

of the article of charge, which are not admitted or it fit thinks Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

necessary to appoint under Sub-rule 2 of this Rule; an enquiry

authority for the purpose he may do so.

14. Rule 17(14) of the Rules, 2005 clearly mandates

that on the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary

evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be

proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary

authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of

the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on

behalf of the Government Servant. The Presenting Officer shall

be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points on which

they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter,

without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring

authority may also put such questions to the witnesses, as it

thinks fit.

15. The aforesaid provisions obligate the disciplinary

authority to make a preliminary enquiry before the initiation of a

departmental proceeding and issuance of the memo of charge. In

the present case, the disciplinary authority has failed to exercise

his duty.

16. In the case in hand, the memo of charge does not

contain the list of witnesses; even the list of documents only

contains two letters; (i) issued by the Principal Secretary, Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar contained in

Memo No. 379 dated 03.06.2008 and (ii) Memo No. 508 dated

12.05.2008 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance

Investigation Bureau, Bihar. Neither the complaint nor the other

relevant documents relating to the charge have been included in

the list of documents, though later on, a copy of the complaint

petition, pre and post trap memorandum and the case diary have

been handed over to the petitioner.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in innumerable

decisions has held that recording of evidence in a disciplinary

proceeding to uphold the charges of major punishment is sine

qua non.

18. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), while

dealing with the identical issue has held "the purported

evidence collected during investigation by the investigating

officer against the accused by itself could not be treated to be

evidence in disciplinary proceeding. The charges levelled

against the delinquent officer must be found to have been

proved on the basis of the evidence." The Hon'ble Court made it

clear that the report of the Enquiry Officer could not be

sustained if it is based upon merely ipse dixit as also surmises

and conjectures. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

should apparently supported by any evidence. Suspicion,

however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be

a substitute for legal proof.

19. It would be apt and proper to encapsulate the

relevant paragraphs of the said judgment for appreciation of the

issue:

"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 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.

23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof."

20. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

v. Saroj Kumar Sinha [(2010) 2 SCC 772], the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has highlighted the status and duties of the

Enquiry Officer by holding that the employee should be treated

fairly in any proceeding which may culminate in punishment

being imposed upon him.

21. It would be apt and proper to reproduce the

relevant paragraphs of the said decision, which are as under:

Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

"27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge.

28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-

judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/ disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.

29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee.

30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service."

22. It is not in dispute that the respondent authorities

have produced any witness to prove the charges and even the

contents of the FIR made therein. In the case of Commissioner

of Police, Delhi and Others v. Jai Bhagwan [(2011) 6 SCC Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

376], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "non examination of

a complainant during departmental proceeding leads to denial

of an opportunity to a government servant of cross-examination

would certainly cause prejudice to the right of the delinquent,

who shall be deprived from cross-examination."

23. Now coming to the enquiry report, there is no

finding as to how the Enquiry Officer has come to the

conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stands

proved. The entire finding of the Enquiry Officer is based upon

the FIR and the vigilance report, the content of which has never

been proved and admittedly the Vigilance Case No. 22 of 2008

is still pending. The Presenting Officer has accepted the

contention of the petitioner that the land in question is

Gairmazarua Mallik land as per the survey record and the action

of the petitioner to prevent the complainant in filling up the

pond was in accordance with law. However, so far the demand

of bribe is concerned, it is completely criminal act on which he

made no opinion. The opinion of the Presenting Officer was

duly accepted but nonetheless the Conducting Officer placing

reliance upon the vigilance case, wherein it has come that the

petitioner was apprehended while accepting the bribe, has found

the charges proved. The procedure adopted by the Enquiry Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

Officer and his finding based on no evidence has no sanction of

law and deprecated in various decisions, including the decisions

discussed hereinabove.

24. Coming to the impugned order of dismissal, this

Court further finds that there is no discussion of the show-cause

explanation of the petitioner, wherein several factual and legal

points have been taken by him in order to confront the charges.

The disciplinary authority has inflicted the impugned

punishment merely accepting the recommendation of the

Conducting Officer and taking note of the fact that the petitioner

has not taken any further action to verify as to whether there is

any Jamabandi in favour of the complainant and if that is so, no

action has been taken for cancellation of it; the aforesaid fact

has not been brought to the notice of the superior authorities.

This finding of the disciplinary authority is not based upon any

charges. The memo of charge, contains only imputation that the

petitioner was apprehended while accepting the bribe without

there being any substantive charge of his act constituting a

misconduct and unbecoming of a government servant. The

disciplinary authority has allowed himself to be influenced by

irrelevant or extraneous consideration and thereby committed a

mistake in upholding the guilt of the petitioner. The finding of Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence.

25. The Hon'ble Apex Court, time without number in

various decisions held that although the charges in a

departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a

criminal case i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, but it cannot lose

sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi

judicial function, who upon analyzing the documents must

arrive at the conclusion that there had been a preponderance of

probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on

record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any

irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant fact. He

cannot shift the burden of proof and reject the relevant

testimony of witnesses only on the basis of surmises and

conjectures [vide M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC

88)].

26. From the facts as discussed above, is precisely

apparent that the departmental proceeding was not in conformity

with the prescriptions as provided under Rule 17 of the Rules,

2005 and the petitioner has been deprived from the opportunity

to rebut the allegation.

27. In the case of Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of

Police and Others [(1999) 2 SCC 10], the Hon'ble Supreme Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

Court held that "it was obligatory on the part of the disciplinary

authority to have considered the evidence on record before

reaching a conclusion that the charge against the delinquent

stood proved in the departmental proceeding."

28. The orders impugned are sufficient to conclude

that, except the imputation of petitioner's apprehension on the

charge of having accepted illegal gratification and lodging of the

FIR against him, there is no material, whatsoever to support the

charges. The findings, in fact, are based on suspicion and

perverse. It is this perverse finding which has also been

sustained by the appellate authority in Service Appeal No. 27 of

2018. The appellate authority has also failed to take note of any

defence raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal. The

perverse finding of the disciplinary authority have merely been

reaffirmed in a mechanical manner.

29. For the reasons afore-noted, this Court has left

with no option but to set aside the order dated 07.09.2018 as

contained in Memo No. 782 (Annexure-26) as well as the order

dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Minister-cum-Appellate

Authority, Department of Revenue, Government of Bihar

(Annexure-28).

30. Now, it would be pertinent to note that the Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

petitioner has already superannuated way back on 29.02.2020

and thus any remand of the matter to the disciplinary authority

afresh would be offering a premium to the negligence of the

management/disciplinary authority and condoning the levity

with which the departmental enquiry was conducted.

31. In the case of Vikash Kumar (supra), the learned

Division Bench of this Court, has refused to accede to the

request of the learned Advocate General to grant a remand for

the purpose of producing valid evidence; in an identical matter

where no valid evidence is led at the enquiry proceeding.

32. It would be worthy to note the relevant extract

thereof:

"12. From the above extract it is very clear that the High Court under Article 226/227 is entitled to interfere when the finding of fact is based on no evidence. If in every case where no valid evidence is led at the enquiry proceedings, there is a remand made, it would be offering a premium to the negligence of the Management/ Disciplinary Authority and condoning the levity with which the departmental enquiry was conducted. It is the Disciplinary Authority who appoints the Enquiry Officer and also the Presenting Officer. We would think that the Presenting Officer would be well versed in the procedures and also be informed of the manner in Patna High Court CWJC No.5758 of 2020 dt. 07-02-2025

which evidence has to be led before the Enquiry Officer to prove the misconduct alleged against the delinquent employee.

13. In disciplinary enquiry proceedings, it is also the trite principle that the standard of proof is preponderance of probability as distinguished from proof beyond reasonable doubt; as would be required in a criminal prosecution. However, if there is no evidence led at the enquiry, there is no question of any preponderance of probability being drawn to find the allegations proved nor can the delinquent be penalized on the basis of peremptory findings without any valid evidence."

33. The writ petition stands allowed with all

consequential benefits to be extended, preferably within three

months.

34. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.

35. There shall be no order as to cost(s).

(Harish Kumar, J) rohit/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                20-01-2025
Uploading Date          10-02-2025
Transmission Date