Patna High Court
Ashok Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 18 January, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5055 of 2024
======================================================
Ashok Kumar, S/o Late Kashi Mahatha, At Present Flat No.402, Kapil Tara
Kunj Apartment, West Boring Canal Road, Anandpuri West, Near Saket
Galaxy Apartment, Patna-800001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Secretariat, Patna.
4. Governor's Secretariat, Bihar, Raj Bhavan, Patna-800022.
5. The High Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar General, Patna.
6. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna.
7. The Registrar (Vigilance) Cum Inquiry Officer, Patna High Court, Patna.
8. The Officer on Special Duty Cum Presenting Officer, Patna High Court,
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Hitesh Suman, AC to SC 13
For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Janardan Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 : Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 18-01-2025
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Mr. Piyush Lall for the High Court.
2. Mr. Ashok Kumar, a dismissed Civil Judge,
Junior Division has put up a challenge to his dismissal from
Patna High Court CWJC No.5055 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
2/9
service and has prayed for setting aside the notification of
the General Administration Department (GAD),
Government of Bihar dated 20.04.2023, whereby in terms
of the recommendation of the High Court, Patna, he has
been dismissed from service for serious misconduct; for
quashing the Memo No. 19715-19722 dated 25.03.2023
issued by the Registrar General of the Patna High Court
whereby a request was made to the Principal Secretary,
General Administration Department for issuance of
necessary notification to give effect to the
recommendation of the Patna High Court to impose the
punishment of dismissal; for quashing the entire
disciplinary proceeding and all consequential orders passed
thereto; for quashing the order dated 24.11.2023 passed
by His Excellency, the Governor of Bihar, whereby the
review filed by the petitioner was dismissed and for
commanding the reinstatement of the petitioner in service
and to grant him all the consequential benefits to which he
would be entitled.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5055 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
3/9
3. While the petitioner was posted as Sub-
Judge-ACJM, Madhubani and was in seisin of Trial No. 694
of 2008 (G.R. No. 2328 of 2008, arising out of Madhubani
P.S. Case No. 400 of 2008), one Rubina Khatoon, the
informant filed a complaint on 23.01.2018 alleging that
the petitioner as the Trial Judge demanded physical
favours with her daughter and when that was not done,
the case was dismissed. The High Court, Patna called for a
report from the District & Sessions Judge, Madhubani,
who reported confirming the accusation along with a C.D.
in original of the recordings of the conversation between
the complainant, her daughter and the Judicial Officer
along with the complainant's statement on affidavit
supporting the above allegation as also the reply of the
petitioner which was demanded of him by the District &
Sessions Judge, Madhubani. Along with the afore-noted
documents, the CDR during the period October, 2017 to
January, 2018 of the conversation between the petitioner
and the complainant was also sent.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5055 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
4/9
4. It further appears that the documents were
seen by the Inspecting Judge of Madhubani and thereafter
the Standing Committee in its meeting held on
10.07.2018
had resolved to seek a show-cause reply from
the petitioner. The show-cause reply of the petitioner was
not found to be satisfactory and the Standing Committee
of the High Court in its meeting held on 10.09.2018,
resolved to initiate a departmental proceeding against the
petitioner. The petitioner was suspended forthwith. The
Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed.
The articles of charge against the officer was framed.
5. The approved articles of charge, the
statement of allegation, list of witnesses and the list of
documents relied upon in the departmental proceeding
were furnished to the petitioner and he was asked to
submit his written statement of defence within a stipulated
period.
6. The charge against the petitioner was that he
displayed extreme moral depravity and perversity and had
Patna High Court CWJC No.5055 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
indulged in utterly shameful conduct which was absolutely
unethical and amounted to willful and gross abuse of
Judicial powers leading to breach of public trust and
thereby shaking the public confidence in the Courts.
7. In the written statement of defence, the
petitioner though admitted to have conversed with the
complainant but denied the accusation made by her
against him.
8. In the inquiry, the complainant and her
daughter were produced as Prosecution Witnesses No. 1
and 2 respectively. Both of them identified the petitioner
and asserted that the conversation in the audio-clips of the
compact disc to be true.
9. During the course of proceeding, the
Presenting Officer had filed a petition dated 29.06.2019
for exhibiting documents mentioned in the list of
documents supplied to the petitioner.
10. The petitioner had objected to the marking
Patna High Court CWJC No.5055 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
of those documents except the records of the Trial No.
598 of 2018 and had also challenged the genuineness of
the C.D. containing the recorded conversation between
him, the complainant and her daughter.
11. The Inquiry Officer then directed the
complainant, her daughter and the petitioner to appear
before the FSL, Patna for ascertaining whether the voice in
the C.D. was theirs.
12. The FSL report indicated that the voice of
the petitioner and the daughter of the complainant were
similar in the C.D. and the voice sample, but no definitive
opinion could be given about the voice of the complainant
as the voice quality was poor and not capable of being put
to comparative analysis.
13. The petitioner appears to have challenged
the authenticity of the FSL report and claimed that the
veracity of the contents of the report can only be tested by
examining the Officer, who had submitted it and had
Patna High Court CWJC No.5055 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
therefore opposed such report to be marked as an exhibit.
14. Faced with this situation, the Presenting
Officer had filed a petition dated 09.12.2020 to call the
Director-in-Charge of FSL, Patna to give evidence in
response to the said objection.
15. An Assistant Director of the FSL, Patna
appeared as Prosecution Witness No. 3, who too was
cross-examined by the petitioner who had confirmed the
genuineness of the report.
16. Two witness in defence were also produced
before the Inquiry Officer on the asking of the petitioner.
17. Based on the evidence on record, oral,
documentary, as well as electronic as also the defence
raised by the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer returned a
finding of the charges being proved and established.
18. The Standing Committee of the High Court
considered the inquiry report and directed for a copy of the
same to be submitted to the petitioner for his response. A
second show-cause notice was thus issued to the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.5055 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
calling for his written response, which was scrutinized by
the Standing Committee of the High Court.
19. The Standing Committee, thereafter,
resolved that in view of the charges having been found
proved, the Officer deserved to be dismissed from service.
20. Since the Standing Committee was of the
opinion that the punishment of dismissal only would be
appropriate, it further resolved to place the matter before
the Full Court in its next meeting for consideration.
21. The Full Court in its meeting held on
15.03.2023 considered the resolution of the Standing
Committee, recommending the dismissal of the petitioner
from the service and approved the same.
22. Against the afore-noted decision, the
petitioner had filed review before His Excellency, the
Governor of Bihar, which too was dismissed.
23. The entire procedure for departmental
proceeding was followed to the hilt and the grievance of
the petitioner that he was not given ample opportunity to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5055 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
defend himself and that the evidence was weak for
warranting the punishment of dismissal has no substance.
The decision to dismiss the petitioner was taken on a
careful and due consideration of all evidence on record
including the electronic evidence.
24. The learned counsel for the petitioner was
unable to draw any substantial flaw in the entire procedure
followed in the departmental proceeding.
25. There is no merit in this petition and is thus
dismissed in limine.
26. No order as to costs.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
Sauravkrsinha/
Krishna-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.01.2025
Transmission Date
