Patna High Court
Raman Kumar @ Raman Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 23 January, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.952 of 2025
======================================================
Raman Kumar @ Raman Kumar Singh S/o Late Triveni Prasad Singh,
resident of Village-Babu Babhani, Babhuni, Babhawani Bholwa, P.S.-
Singheshwar, Dist-Madhepura at present resident at Sukhanagar Ward No.
-17, Madhubani, P.S.-K. Hat, Dist-Purnia.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Deptt. of Education, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Collector, Purnia.
6. Sri Shiv Nath Razak, The District Education Officer, Purnia.
7. The District Programme Officer, Purnia.
8. Md. Soyeb Alam, the Incharge Principal, Zila School, Purnia.
9. Mrs Seema Kumari, the Incharge Principal, Zila School, Purnia.
10. Diwakant Jha, Incharge Principal, Zila School, Purnia.
11. Md. Arsad Alam, the Incharge Principal, Zila School, Purnia.
12. Ghanshayam Singh, Clerk, Rajkiya Zila School, Purnia.
13. Vishambhar Tatma, Madhyamik Clerk, Zila School, Purnia.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Mallick, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, AC to GA-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-01-2025
Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Mallick, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajeev Shekhar,
learned AC to GA-13 for the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:
"(i) To quash the order dated 19.04.2023
passed by the respondent no-03, the Director
Patna High Court CWJC No.952 of 2025 dt.23-01-2025
2/8
Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna Whereby the
respondent no -03, the Director Secondary
Education, Bihar, Patna directing the respondent no
- 06, the District Education Officer, Purnia to
initiate the departmental Proceeding against the
petitioner Raman Kumar Singh within a week after
receiving the letter. (annexure-P/14)
(ii) Further quash the order dated
10.05.2023
passed by Sri Shiv Nath Ra zak the
respondent no - 06, the District Education Officer,
Purnia whereby the respondent no - 06 the District
Education Officer, Purnia charge sheeted the
petitioner Raman Kumar Singh alleging that in four
head a) Not handed over the Charge and disobey
the order of department, b) Petitioner has been
directed by letter no -328 dated 02.02.2023 to hand
over charge within two days but it was disobeyed c)
Due to keep the financial record in his custody it
delayed in payments of various heads of the
employees and the students passed out in the
examination and as such they suffered by his
behaviour and conduct.d) The act of the petitioner
Raman Kumar Singh is against the rule of service
code. (Annexure - 15)
(iii) To grant any other relief or reliefs
as to which the petitioner is entitle in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner had retired from the post
of Head Clerk, Zila School, Prunia on 31.01.2023 and nearly
after three months of retirement, a decision was taken by the
Director, Secondary Education, directing on 19.04.2023 for
initiating a Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner as
per the provision contained in Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension
Rules, 1950. Accordingly, the petitioner was served 'Prapatra-K'
containing the charge-sheet dated 10.05.2023 was
communicated to the petitioner. From the content of the charge
Patna High Court CWJC No.952 of 2025 dt.23-01-2025
memo contained in Memo No. 1037 dated 11.05.2023 reveals
that a copy of which was only sent to the Regional Director of
Education, Purnia Pramandal and Director, Secondary
Education by the District Education Officer, Purnia. Learned
counsel submitted that the petitioner is a retired Class-III
employee and pursuant to the Letter No. 65 dated 01.03.2023,
the petitioner had already submitted the passbook and cheque
book to the office of the school, for which he was also given
acknowledgment on the same day. On these grounds, learned
counsel submitted that the charges contained in 'Prapatra-K'
don't constitute misconduct for which the authorities are
required to take Disciplinary Action against the petitioner. The
petitioner further submitted that though the charge-sheet has
been submitted on 10.03.2023 but no action has been taken. The
delay caused is against the law as till date Enquiry Officer and
Conducting Officer have not been appointed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State submitted that the writ petition is pre-mature. Merely
issuance of a charge memo in absence of any decision of the
Appointing Authority to initiate Disciplinary Proceeding against
the petitioner no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. The writ
petition is not maintainable.
Patna High Court CWJC No.952 of 2025 dt.23-01-2025
5. Heard the parties.
6. It is a settled principle of law that a charge memo
can be challenged on the limited grounds and the judicial review
against the charge memo is to be exercised cautiously. The writ
petition against the charge memo can be entertained, if the same
has been issued by an incompetent authority, having no
jurisdiction or an allegation of malafide is raised or if the same
is in violation of the statutory rules in force. In this regard, it
would be gainful to reiterate the view of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Upendra
Singh, reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357, wherein in paragraph 6,
the Apex Court has held as follows:
"6.In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary
inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on
the charges framed (read with imputation or
particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or
other irregularity alleged can be said to have been
made out or the charges framed are contrary to any
law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to
go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The
tribunal cannot take over the functions of the
disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the
charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to
go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to
court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look
into the truth of the charges or into the correctness
of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority
or the appellate authority as the case may be. The
function of the court/tribunal is one of judicial
review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid
down by this Court. It would be sufficient to quote
the decision in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation
Officer-cum- Assessing Authority, Kamal v. Gopi
Nath & Sons. The Bench comprising M.N.
Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) and A.M.
Patna High Court CWJC No.952 of 2025 dt.23-01-2025
Ahmadi, J., affirmed the principle thus : (SCC p.
317, para 8) "Judicial review, it is trite, is not
directed against the decision but is confined to the
decision-making process. Judicial review cannot
extend to the examination of the correctness or
reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The
purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure
that the authority after according fair treatment
reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to
decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of
the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a
decision but a review of the manner in which the
decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that
the Court sits in judgment not only on the
correctness of the decision making process but also
on the correctness of the decision itself."
7. The said proposition was reiterated by the Apex
Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu Vs. Pramod Kumar,
IPS & Anr. reported in 2018 (17) SCC 677. It is also apt to
extract the relevant portion from the law laid down by the Apex
Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana
reported in 2006 (12) SCC 28, which reads as under:-
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this
Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge
sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer,
Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar
Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special
Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse
and another, AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and
others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and
others 2001 (10) SCC 639, State of UP vs. Brahm
datt Sharma and another. AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should
not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice
or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition
may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet
or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause
of action, because it does not amount to an adverse
order which affects the rights of any party unless the
same has been issued by a person having no
jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after
Patna High Court CWJC No.952 of 2025 dt.23-01-2025
considering the reply to the show-cause notice or
after holding an enquiry the authority concerned
may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the
charges are not established. It is well settled that a
writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A
mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not
infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final
order imposing some punishment or otherwise
adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said
party can be said to have any grievance."
(emphasis supplied)
8. In the case of Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash
Chandra Mirdha reported in 2012 (11) SCC 565, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court further held that if a charge-sheet is challenged
on the ground of delay in initiation of Disciplinary Proceeding
or delay in concluding the proceeding considering the gravity of
charge on the ground of delay and quashed the charge-sheet.
Paragraph no. 8 of the aforementioned judgment would be
relevant to reproduce hereinafter:
"8. Law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a
routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any
grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the
issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision
of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-
sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground
of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay
in concluding the proceedings, the court/ tribunal may
quash the charge- sheet after considering the gravity of
the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case
weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent
employee and must reach the conclusion which is just
and proper in the circumstance.
9. The challenge to the charge memo solely on the
basis that the same is against the rules prescribed under CCA
Patna High Court CWJC No.952 of 2025 dt.23-01-2025
rules was considered by the Apex Court and it was held in case
of T. Ramamoorthy v The Secretary, Sri Ramakrishna
Vidyalaya High School, etc. & Others reported in 1998 Writ.
LR 641 that when a statute contemplates a thing to be done in a
prescribed manner, the same has to be done, in the manner as
provided under law. In Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment, it
has been held as follows:
"6. If the statutory provision enacted by the
Legislature prescribed a particular mode for
terminating the service or dismissing the
teaching or a non-teaching staff of a school, it
can and has to be done not only in that manner
alone, but it cannot be done in any manner too.
This principle that where a power is given to do a
certain thing in a certain way, things must be
done in that way and not otherwise and that the
other method of performance is necessarily
precluded, is not only well settled, but squarely
applies to this case also in construing the scope
of the power as also its exercise by the
management under Section 22 of the Act."
10. In the present case, the petitioner has been able to
show that the charge memo was not communicated to him vide
Memo No. 1037 dated 11.05.2023, by the District Education
Officer but the same has not been communicated to the
petitioner which shows that the appointing authorities have
deliberately not taken any action to appoint the Conducting
Officer and the Enquiry Officer even after lapse of more than
one year. The action on the part of the District Education Officer
can be said to premature. Petitioner has been able to bring on
Patna High Court CWJC No.952 of 2025 dt.23-01-2025
record by way of 'Annexure-3', the documents, which were
required to be returned back to the school, he had already
returned back. In the above background, whether the present
writ petition calls for any interference.
11. Thus, the law is well settled in respect of
holding charge-sheet or show cause notice doesn't give rise to
any cause of action because it doesn't amount to an adverse
order, which affects the right of any party, however, at the same
time, the Apex Court in the case of Chairman-Cum-M.D., Coal
India Ltd. and Others Vs. Ananta Saha and Others reported in
(2011) 5 SCC 142 held that the charge memo cannot be issued
in a casual or routine manner and the disciplinary authority is
required to apply his mind before its issuance.
12. The Disciplinary Authority, if so desire, may
proceed in accordance with law.
13. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 27.01.2025
Transmission Date N/A
