Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Nisar Ahmad Khan on 20 January, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1296 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20662 of 2012
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Water
Resources Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Middle Department of Water Resources,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Executive Engineer, Gandak Design Division No. 1, Motihari.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Nisar Ahmad Khan, son of Abdul Hai Khan, resident of Mohalla-Baheri
Sheikh Toli, P.O. P.S. District-Balia, State U.P. posted as Junior Engineer,
Under Gandak Design Division No. 3, Motihari, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 20-01-2025
Re.- I.A. No. 1 of 2023
Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned Advocate for the
appellant/applicant presses I.A. No. 1 of 2023 for
condoning the delay of 64 days in preferring this appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the
delay of 64 days in preferring this appeal is condoned.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1296 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
2/7
3. I.A. No. 1 of 2023 stands allowed.
Re : LPA No. 1296 of 2023
4. We have heard Mr. Alok Ranjan, the learned
Advocate for the appellant/State and Mr. Arun Kumar,
the learned Advocate for the respondent.
5. The respondent stood dismissed in a
departmental proceeding initiated against him.
6. On perusal of the entire records, the learned
Single Judge found out that in the domestic inquiry, no
procedure was followed. The complainant had not been
examined nor anyone of the officials had been cited and
examined in support of the allegation against the
respondent relating to demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, who
had made the allegation against the respondent, was
also not cited as a witness and therefore the allegations
could not be proved. It was found to be a serious lacuna,
violating the principles of natural justice.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1296 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
3/7
8. We find from the order that the learned
Single Judge contemplated of remanding the case to the
Disciplinary Authority but he took into account that the
allegation related back to about two decades and the
respondent would have long retired from service.
9. Considering this aspect of the matter, it
appears that the learned Single Judge, in view of the
serious allegation against the respondent regarding
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and with a
desire to put a quietus to such litigation, found it best to
remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority but with
an observation to convert the order of dismissal dated
11.10.2011
to that of compulsory retirement from the
date he was dismissed from service and to settle his
retiral benefits as if he had retired from the date of
dismissal. If any re-fixation of pay with reference to
revision and consequential benefit, if any, as on the date
of dismissal, was also directed to be calculated and
based on such re-fixation of pay, the pension of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1296 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
respondent was directed to be fixed within a stipulated
period of time.
10. While saying so, the learned Single Judge
was also conscious of the fact that he had modified the
penalty only for the reason of giving a quietus to the
litigation and not acting as an appeal against the order,
especially with respect to the sentencing.
11. The learned Single Judge also took note of
the parallel proceeding in the criminal side which was
reported to be pending.
12. However today, the learned counsel for the
respondent has informed this Court that the criminal
case against him has ended in acquittal.
13. Considering this aspect of the matter, we
do not intend to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
14. However, Mr. Alok Ranjan, the learned
Advocate for the State has pointed out that some
remarks were made against the Additional Chief
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1296 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government
of Bihar in the order and a general observation was
made about the apathetic and lackadaisical approach of
the bureaucrats in general in the State of Bihar, which
was not warranted.
15. In support of the aforesaid contention, it
has been pointed out that on 05.07.2023, the learned
Single Judge had directed the Principal Secretary, Water
Resources Department to file his personal affidavit after
going through the inquiry reports as to whether the
respondent had been provided the article of charge
along with the statement of imputation, list of
documents, list of witnesses or not. Certain other
directions were also issued regarding the contents of
such affidavit which would be filed by the Principal
Secretary, Water Resources Department.
16. When the matter came up before the
learned Single Judge for consideration, the post of the
Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department had
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1296 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
become vacant and therefore the Additional Chief
Secretary, Water Resources Department, swore the
affidavit.
17. This was not appreciated by the learned
Single Judge who deprecated the practice of another
officer swearing the affidavit.
18. We find that such comments were not
called for, especially when the post of Principal
Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government
of Bihar was vacant and the Additional Chief Secretary
of the same Department had sworn the affidavit.
19. Any general observation about the working
of the bureaucracy in general, in our view, is not called
for in judicial orders, especially when no opportunity is
given to the erring official/ officials to explain his/ their
cause.
20. For the aforesaid reason, we expunge the
remark made against the Additional Chief Secretary and
the bureaucracy in general in the aforenoted order dated
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1296 of 2023 dt.20-01-2025
17.07.2023.
21. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Rajesh/Harsh
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.01.2025
Transmission Date
