Patna High Court
Skant Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Bihar on 3 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 1638 of 2024
======================================================
Manish Prajapati Son of Ram Dayal Prasad, Resident of village- Paliya, P.S. -
Rajpur, District - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Under Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Director General of Police (Budget Welfare and Appeal)
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Additional Director General of Police-cum-Director, Bihar Police
Academy, Rajgir.
6. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police cum-Deputy Director, Bihar Police
Academy, Rajgir.
7. The Assistant Director (Administration) Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir.
8. The Superintendent of Police-cum-In-charge Assistant Director, Bihar Police
Academy, Rajgir, Camp-Bihar Special Arms Police Force-04, Dumraon.
9. The Assistant Director(Training) Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir.
10. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bihar Police Academy cum Enquiry
Authority, Rajgir
11. The Superintendent of Police, Kishanganj.
... ... Respondent/s
WITH
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 1111 of 2024
======================================================
Skant Kumar Gupta Son of Nand Lal Gupta, Resident of village- Chailahan,
P.S.- Banjaria, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Under Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Additional Director General of Police, (Budget, Welfare and Appeal)
Bihar, Patna.
6. The Additional Director General of Police -cum- Director, Bihar Police
Academy, Rajgir.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1638 of 2024 dt.03-03-2025
2/10
7. The Deputy Inspector General of Police -cum- Deputy Director, Bihar Police
Academy, Rajgir.
8. The Assistant Director (Administration), Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir.
9. The Superintendent of Police -cum- In-charge Assistant Director, Bihar
Police Academy, Rajgir, Camp- Bihar Special Arms Police Force- 04,
Dumraon.
10. The Assistant Director (Training), Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir.
11. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bihar Police Academy -cum- Enquiry
Authority.
12. The Superintendent of Police, Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1638 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Ranjan
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (5)
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1111 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Ranjan
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader 23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 03-03-2025
Since common issues are involved in these writ
petitions, therefore, both these writ petitions are being disposed of
by this common order.
2 Vide Memo No 1411 dated 05.04.2022, which has
been communicated to the petitioner Manish Prajapati of CWJC
No 1638 of 2024 through the Superintendent of Police, Kishanganj
by the Assistant Director (Training), Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir
vide its Memo No 1424 dated 06.04.2022 whereby and where
under the petitioner Manish Prajapati has been dismissed from the
services and in CWJC No 1111 of 2024, petitioner Skant Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.1638 of 2024 dt.03-03-2025
3/10
Gupta has also been dismissed as per the order contained in Memo
No 1410 dated 05.04.2022 which has been communicated to him
through Superintendent of Police, Katihar by the Assistant
Director (Training), Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir vide his Memo
No 1423 dated 06.04.2022. Against the said order of termination,
both the petitioners preferred departmental appeal as well as
memorial which have also been dismissed. Hence, both these
petitions have been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the
order of termination, order passed by the appellate authority and
order passed by the authority in the memorial.
3 Brief facts of both the petitions are that the petitioner
Manish Prajapati and Skant Kumar were selected for the post of
Police Sub Inspector and joined their services on 01.06.2019. On
04.02.2021
, they were sent to Training Center, Bihar Special
Armed Police No 4, Dumraon for basic training. After completion
of training, both have appeared for outdoor examinations/tests and
also were declared successful. Internal examination was
scheduled from 31.05.2021 to 14.06.2021. Allegedly two days
prior to the scheduled examination when the CCTV camera was
being installed, both the petitioners and one another person
allegedly tampered the camera and on that basis, both the
petitioners were debarred from appearing at the final examination.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1638 of 2024 dt.03-03-2025
Explanation was called for from the petitioners. They submitted
their response to the show cause. However, without considering
the response submitted by the petitioners herein, a charge memo
was served upon them. Enquiry officer as well as presenting
officer were appointed. During the course of enquiry, in the matter
of Manish Prajapati, 5 witnesses were examined by the
Department and in the matter of Skant Kumar Gupta, 7 witnesses
were examined by the Department. Subsequently, the enquiry
officer, on the basis of material available on record, found the
charges proved against both the petitioners in both the separate
enquiry which was conducted against them. On the basis of
enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued second show cause
notice to the petitioners in both the cases and subsequently passed
the order of dismissal in both the cases which has been assailed by
way of departmental appeal as well as memorial but the same also
stood dismissed.
4 Learned counsel for the petitioners, in both the cases,
submits that in the charge memo, no list of witnesses were
prepared and supplied to the petitioners. Therefore, there is clear
cut violation of Rule 17 (3) of the Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for brevity, the
2005 Rules). He further submits that without citing any witness in
Patna High Court CWJC No.1638 of 2024 dt.03-03-2025
the charge memo, the enquiry officer recorded the statements of 5
- 7 witnesses respectively in both the enquiry proceedings. The
material witness, who was the operator of the CCTV, was not
made witness nor his statement was taken by the enquiry officer.
Therefore, without recording the statement of the operator of
CCTV, it cannot be said that the petitioners had tampered the
camera of CCTV. He further submits that all the witnesses, who
have been examined, had stated that they had not seen the
petitioners tampering the CCTV or even touching the same. Thus,
allegation has not been proved and in fact, this is a case of no
evidence. Reliance has been placed by the counsel in the case of
Roop Singh Negi -Versus- Punjab National Bank & Others,
reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570.
5 Learned counsel further submits that both the
petitioners categorically stated in their reply to the show cause that
they have not touched the CCTV camera and apart from them,
there were other persons who were also present but the defence
taken by the petitioners has neither been considered by the
disciplinary authority nor by the appellate authority. Therefore,
according to the counsel, on these grounds, the order passed by the
disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, as
mentioned herein above, are liable to be set aside.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1638 of 2024 dt.03-03-2025
6 Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the
argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
submits that there is sufficient material on record on the basis of
which the enquiry officer rightly arrived at the conclusion that the
petitioners are the persons who tampered the CCTV camera.
Hence, their services have rightly been terminated by the
competent authority.
7 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the orders, as referred to herein above in both the cases
and other materials available on record.
8 With regard to the first ground raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in both the cases, at this juncture, it
would be useful to reproduce the provisions of Rule 17 (3) of the
2005 Rules which reads thus:
"17. Procedure for imposing major
penalties.-
(1) ... ... ...
(2) ... ... ...
(3) Where it is proposed to hold an
inquiry against a government servant under this
Rule, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or
cause to be drawn up-
(i) the substance of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour as a definite and
distinct article of charge;
Patna High Court CWJC No.1638 of 2024 dt.03-03-2025
(ii) a statement of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each
article of charge, which shall contain-
(a) a statement of all relevant facts
including any admission or confession made by
the Government Servant;
(b) a list of such document by which,
and a list of such witnesses by whom, the articles
of charge are proposed to be sustained."
9 Perusal of the above Rule, it reveals that along with
the charge memo, there must be list of documents and the list of
witnesses but perusal of the charge memo in both the petitions, it
transpires that no list of witnesses were prepared nor provided to
the petitioners. This fact has also been admitted by the
respondents in their counter affidavit. Thus, it is clear that in both
the cases, there is violation of Rule 17 (3) of the 2005 Rules.
10 With regard to the second ground raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, undisputedly the
operator of the CCTV camera has not been examined by the
Department nor he was cited as a witness. The witnesses, who
were examined by the enquiry officer, have categorically stated
that such CCTV was shown to them by the operator Rahul Kumar
and that according to the CCTV footage, both the petitioners
herein were seen in the footage. None of the witnesses have stated
that they have seen the petitioners tampering the CCTV camera.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1638 of 2024 dt.03-03-2025
The statement of the witnesses further shows that along with these
petitioners, some other trainee officials were also present in the
room but none of the trainee officials were cited nor examined by
the Department for proving its case. The operator of the CCTV
camera Rahul Kumar and other trainee officials, who were present
inside the room, were the witnesses who can only prove the fact
that the CCTV camera was tampered and it was tampered by the
petitioners herein but they have not been examined for the reasons
best known to the Department. Only on the basis of the statement
made by the witnesses that in the CCTV footage, the petitioners
were seen, the enquiry officer arrived at the conclusion that the
CCTV footage was tampered by the petitioners herein which is not
in accordance with the evidence available on record. The evidence
available on record only shows that the petitioners were present
inside the room along with other officials and they were seen in
the footage of CCTV camera. Merely on this basis, it cannot be
said that they were the persons who tampered the CCTV installed
in the room. This ground has been raised by the petitioners at all
stages but it has not been considered by any authority.
11 In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court observed at paragraph 23 as follows:
"23. Furthermore, the order of the
disciplinary authority as also the appellate
Patna High Court CWJC No.1638 of 2024 dt.03-03-2025
authority are not supported by any reason. As th
orders passed by them have severe civil
consequences, appropriate reasons should have
been assigned. If the enquiry 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
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."
12 In the light of above and on the examination of the
facts, it reveals that the most important witness, i e, the CCTV
operator Rahul Kumar and other trainee officials, who were
present in the room at the relevant time, have not been examined
by the Department to prove its case. There is no evidence
available on record which shows that the petitioners herein were
the persons who tampered the CCTV. The footage only shows that
the petitioners were seen in the room. Only on this basis, it cannot
be said that the petitioners were the persons who tampered the
CCTV.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1638 of 2024 dt.03-03-2025
13 For the reasons and discussions aforementioned and
in view of legal position, as discussed herein above, the entire
disciplinary proceedings, in both the petitions resulting in the
orders impugned, is held illegal.
14 Accordingly, the enquiry report dated 05.03.2022 in
both the cases, the order of punishment dated 05.04.202 in both the
petitions, the appellate order dated 06.06.2023 passed in both the
petitions and the order dated 09.01.2024 passed in the memorial
are quashed and set aside.
15 As a consequence, the petitioners, in both the cases,
are directed to be reinstated on their post with all consequential
benefits which should be provided to them within a period of three
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
16 The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed.
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 11.02.2025
Uploading Date 03.03.2025
Transmission Date NA
