Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar Through The ... vs Rahul Kumar on 4 March, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No. 121 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7906 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District- Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj.
8. The Superintendent of Police, District- Buxar.
9. The Police Inspector-cum-Conducting Officer, OSD, Office of
Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Ananjay Singh @ Ananjay Kumar Singh, Son of Subhas Singh, Resident of
Village and P.O.-Harpur, P.S.- Ekma, District-Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No.473 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7884 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District- Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,(Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj.
8. The Superintendent of Police, District- Arwal.
9. The Police Inspector-Cum-Conducting Officer, OSD, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Shailendra Kumar Singh @ Shailendra Kumar, Son of Late Ashok Kumar
Sing, Resident of Village and P.O.-Arak Parijan Tola, P.S.-Krishna Brij,
District -Buxar.
... ... Respondent
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
2/37
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 223 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7893 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District - Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District - Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District - Gopalganj.
8. The Superintendent of Police, District - Muzaffarpur.
9. The Police Inspector-cum-Conducting Officer, Legal Cell, District -
Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Raj Bharat Singh, Son of Ram Ishwar Singh, Resident of Village- Ahile,
Agiaon, P.O. - Kurmichak, P.S. - Narayanpur (Sahar), District - Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 224 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7909 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District - Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District - Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj.
8. The Superintendent of Police, District- East Champaran (Motihari).
9. The Deputy Superintendent of Police cum Conducting Officer (Muffasil),
Dist. - Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
3/37
Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar, Son of Tarkeshwar Singh, Resident of
Village - Paraskhan, P.O. - Basdila, P.S. Jalalpur (Jalalpur Bazar), District-
Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 228 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7864 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Addl. Chief Secretary Home (Police)
Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Addl. Chief Secretary Home (Police) Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur, Zone, District - Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj.
8. The Superintendent of Police, District- Banka.
9. The Police Inspector- cum-OSD-cum-Conducting Officer, Police Officer,
District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Mithileshwar Singh, Son of Satyanarayan Singh, Resident of Village and
P.O.- Bharpura, P.S. - Sonepur, District- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 231 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7886 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District- Muzaffarpur
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), Bihar, Patna
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Goptalganj
8. The Police Inspector-cum-Officer in Charge cum Conducting Officer, Town
Police Station, District- Gopalganj
... ... Appellants
Versus
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
4/37
Dheeraj Kumar Ray, Son of Ishwar Dayal Ray, Resident of Village-
Gayeghat, P.O.- Ashaparari, P.S.- Simari, District- Buxar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 234 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7896 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District- Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District - Gopalganj.
8. The Superintendent of Police, District - Saran.
9. The Sergeant Major cum Conducting Officer, Police Kendra, Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Rakesh Kumar Singh, Son of Rambahadur Singh, Resident of Village -
Banshipur, P.O. - Shambhuganj, Dist - Banka.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 235 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7894 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Addl. Chief Secretary Home (Police)
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Addl. Chief Secretary Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur, Zone, District- Muzaffarpur
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Bihar, Patna
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj
8. The Superintendent of Police, District- Jehanabad
9. The Police Inspector-cum-Conducting Officer, OSD in the Office
Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj
... ... Appellants
Versus
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
5/37
Manoj Kumar Singh @ Manoj Kumar, Son of Madan Singh, Resident of
Village and P.O.- Harpur Ekma, P.S.- Ekma, District- Saran at Chapra
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 237 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7878 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District- Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra.
6. The Assistant to Inspector General of Police (Inspection), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj.
8. The Superintendent of Police, District- Siwan.
9. The Police Inspector-cum-Conducting Officer, Prohibition Cell, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Son of Ramayan Prasad Srivastava, Resident of Ajij
Lane, Mithapur, Sai Dev Campus, Goriya Math, Phulwari, P.O. - Mithapur,
P.S. - Jakkanpur, Dist- Patna.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 245 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7912 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur, Zone, District- Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Saran Range, District Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj.
8. The Superintendent of Police, District- Banka.
9. The Police Inspector-cum-Conducting Officer, Gopalganj Town, Police
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
6/37
Station, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant
Versus
Mohan Prasad Singh, Son of Parmanand Singh, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Nikhtikalan, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 249 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7897 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District- Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj.
8. The Superintendent of Police, District- Siwan.
9. The Police Inspector-cum-Conducting Officer, Prohibition Cell, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Nawal Kumar Singh, Son of Yadunandan Singh, Resident of Village - Bhalar,
P.S. - Dharhara, Dist- Munger.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 255 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7910 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District- Muzaffarpur
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
7/37
8. The Superintendent of Police, District-Saran.
9. The Police Inspector-Cum-Conducting Officer Mirganj Circle, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Gulam Ahmad, S/o- Gulam Mutaza, Resident of Village- Baghi, P.O.-Banahi,
P.S.- Bihiyan, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 256 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7865 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Addl. Chief Secretary Home (Police)
Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Addl. Chief Secretary Home (Police) Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District- Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj.
8. The Senior Superintendent of Police, District- Patna.
9. The Police Inspector-cum-Conducting Officer, Mirganj Circle, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Nitesh Kumar Singh, Son of Narendra Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-
Garhara Khurd, P.O. and P.S.- Brahmpur, District- Buxar.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 311 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7872 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District- Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District - Gopalganj.
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
8/37
8. The Superintendent of Police, District- Saran.
9. The Police Inspector-cum-Officer, In-charge-cum-Conducting Officer, Town
Police Station, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Manish Kumar @ Manish Kumar Saw, Son of Narayan Saw, Resident of
Village - Mahuli, P.O. - Gidhaur, P.S. - Khaira, District- Jamui.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 469 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7883 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District- Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj.
8. The Police Inspector Cum Conducting Officer, Mirganj Circle, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Pushpendra Ojha Son of Late Babuan Ojha, Resident of Village and P.O.-Ojha
ke Badheya, Barhee, P.S.- Jeeradai, Dist- Siwan.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 470 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7891 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police (Budget/Appeal/Welfare), Bihar, Patna.
5. The Inspector General of Police Muzaffarpur Zone, District- Muzaffarpur.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Saran Range, District- Chapra.
7. The Superintendent of Police District- Gopalganj.
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
9/37
8. The Superintendent of Police District- Siwan.
9. The Superintendent of Police District- Saran.
10. The Sub Divisional Police Officer Hathua, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Brahmdeo Prasad Alok, Son of Sri Mauze Lal Prasad, Resident of Lane No.2,
S.K. Puram, R.P.S. More, Bailey Road, P.O. and P.S.- Danapur, District-Patna.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 471 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7890 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District- Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District - Gopalganj.
8. The Police Inspector-cum-Conducting Officer, Mirganj Circle, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Dineshwar Prasad Yadav, Son of Late Gaya Rai, Resident of Village-
Mubarakpur, P.O. - Gurukul Mehinya, P.S.- Garkha, District- Saran (Chapra).
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 554 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7903 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District- Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District- Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District- Gopalganj.
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
10/37
8. The Sergeant Major cum Conducting Officer, Police Kendra Gopalganj,
District- Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Rahul Kumar, Son of Mohan Choudhary, Resident of Village - Kushwaha
Nagar (Ahary), P.O. and P.S. - Aurangabad, District- Aurangbad.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 116 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7901 of 2020
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone, District - Muzaffarpur.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, District - Chapra.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel) Bihar, Patna.
7. The Superintendent of Police, District - Gopalganj.
8. The Superintendent of Police, District - Saran.
9. The Deputy Superintendant of Police Cum Conducting Officer (Muffasil),
District - Gopalganj.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Anju Devi, Wife of Late Dilkash Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Bindtoli,
P.O. - Tintanga Karari, P.S. - Gopalpur, District - Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 121 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 473 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 223 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 224 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
11/37
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 228 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 231 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 234 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 235 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 237 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 245 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 249 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 255 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 256 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 311 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 469 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
12/37
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 470 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 471 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 554 of 2021)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 116 of 2022)
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, A.C. To A.A.G.3
For the Respondent : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 04-03-2025
These Letters Patent Appeals are raising common
question, therefore, these matters have been tagged and listed
together for consideration.
2. Mr. P.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate
General-3 (in short 'A.A.G.') has requested this Court to take up
LPA No. 121 of 2021 (State of Bihar Vs. Ananjay Singh @
Ananjay Kumar Singh) as the lead case. Accordingly, we have
heard learned A.A.G. assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey,
A.C. to A.A.G. for the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondents.
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
13/37
3. In order to appreciate the issue raised for
consideration by this Court, it would be required to mention the
brief facts of the case.
Brief Facts
4. It is stated that in a village known as 'Khajuria' under
Gopalganj (Town) Police Station, District- Gopalganj, on
16.08.2016
sixteen persons consumed spurious country-made
liquor, they were reported dead. A first information report was
lodged giving rise to Gopalganj Town P.S. Case No. 347 of 2016.
In a raid conducted in village, police recovered huge quantity of
semi fermented country made liquor and other intermediate/final
products intended to be used in the preparation of country-made
liquor.
5. The petitioner(s) before the learned Writ Court were
among the 29 police personnel posted in the police station. They
were placed under suspension. Later on, the order of suspension
was revoked and a decision was taken to conduct a departmental
proceeding against them. Charges were framed against the
petitioners-respondents by Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj.
The chargesheet, apart from the facts as to the occurrence which
had taken place on 16.08.2016, mentioned that in relation to new
Excise Policy, in the crime meetings from time to time the police
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
personnel were sensitized for the recovery of illicit liquor. The
chargesheet alleged that the manufacturing of illicit liquor and sale
of the same in 'Khajuria' village which is at a distance of two
kilometers from the police station was within the knowledge of the
police officers and the staffs but they did not take it seriously, it is
an apparent case of negligence, dereliction of duty and suspicious
conduct.
6. From the charge memo, it would appear that the
disciplinary authority intended to rely upon three documents to
establish the charge. Those are (1) Gopalganj Jiladesh No.
738/2016, (2) Gopalganj Jiladesh No. 19/2017 and (3) Copy of the
FIR.
7. Further the Department named three witnesses in the
chargesheet, they are (1) Confidential Reader, Superintendent of
Police, Gopalganj, (2) Reserved Sub-Inspector, Police Line,
Gopalganj and (3) Station House Officer, Town Police Station,
Gopalganj.
8. The learned Writ Court found that the document at
Item No. 1 hereinabove was the order whereby the petitioner was
put under suspension and the document at Item No. 2 of the
chargesheet was the order whereby the said order of suspension
was revoked. The third document was the first information report
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
registered in respect of the occurrence in question. In the
departmental inquiry, the Confidential Reader, Superintendent of
Police, Gopalganj proved the documents at Item Nos. 1 and 2
which were issued by the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj
after the occurrence was reported. The Reserve Sub-Inspector of
Police also proved the said two documents. The Officer-in-Charge
of the police station proved the F.I.R. showing registration of
Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 347 of 2016.
9. The Inquiry Officer submitted it's report on
20.11.2018. He held that the petitioner(s) must have been going to
the nearby villages for patrolling duty and for the investigation of
the cases, therefore, he/they should have been aware that there
were complete prohibition imposed by the State of Bihar and
stringent provisions have been made for implementation of the
prohibition laws, despite that, illegal business of illicit liquor at a
place hardly two kilometers away from the police station was
going on which was suggestive of the petitioner(s)' negligence,
dereliction of duty and his suspicious conduct.
10. The disciplinary authority took into consideration
the inquiry report and the conduct of the petitioner and imposed
punishment of 'two black marks' having the effect of stoppage of
increment in salary for one year with cumulative effect. The writ
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
petitioner(s) did not prefer any appeal against the said order of
punishment.
11. It appears that the Deputy Inspector-General of
Police was not in agreement with the disciplinary authority, as
according to him, it was a case of proven misconduct on the part of
the writ petitioner(s), therefore, it warranted harsher punishment.
He, therefore, sent the entire records to the Police Headquarter for
further action under Rule 853 A (a) of Bihar Police Manual, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Police Manual') through his Letter
No. 264 dated 25.01.2019. Thereafter, the writ petitioner(s)
was/were served with a notice against proposed termination of
his/their services in exercise of power under Rule 853A (a) of the
Police Manual. Thereafter the impugned orders were passed.
12. The writ petitioner(s) were advised to prefer an
appeal under Rule 24 of the Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Bihar CCA Rules'). Later on, the writ
petitioner(s) were advised that there is no provision for statutory
appeal against the order passed by the Inspector General-cum-
Director General of Police in exercise of his power under Rule
853A (a) of the Police Manual. The writ petitioner(s), therefore,
moved this Court invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
this Court. The order passed by Respondent No. 3 under Rule
853A (a) of the Police Manual was assailed in the writ petition(s).
The writ petitioner(s) also assailed the consequential orders issued
by the Respondent No. 7 and Respondent No. 8. In the lead case
(C.W.J.C. No. 7906 of 2020), the impugned orders are contained
in Annexures '7', '8' and '9' respectively. Similar orders have been
passed in respect of all the writ petitioners.
13. In the writ petition(s), the petitioner(s) have further
prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to reinstate them on the post of Constable with effect
from the date of issuance of the consequential orders, with all
consequential benefits including back wages which accrued to
them during the period of their termination till their reinstatement.
Submissions of the State
14. It appears that a counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of the respondent Director General of Police, Bihar
(Respondent No. 3) in the writ petition(s). He sought to defend the
order of termination. It is the stand of Respondent No. 3 that a
departmental inquiry (proceeding) against employees of the Police
Organization would be governed by the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005
and the procedures prescribed therein to conduct a disciplinary
proceeding for imposing major penalties are fully applicable. It is
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
his submission that the whole matter was reviewed at the level of
the Police Headquarter, Bihar, Patna and after review, an
explanation was sought from the petitioner(s) calling upon them to
show cause as to why they should not be dismissed from service in
view of the seriousness of the charges proved against the
petitioner(s). The petitioner(s) denied the charges of having
knowledge of manufacturing of illicit liquor in Khajuria village.
The Respondent No. 3 was, however, of the view that the
petitioner(s) had not taken seriously the earlier occurrences in
which illicit liquors were recovered from village Khajuria giving
rise to Gopalganj Town P.S. Case No. 160 of 2016 and 334 of
2016. The Respondent No. 3 was of the view that since the police
team used to go village Khajuria repeatedly for patrolling duty,
hence, they had prior knowledge of manufacturing racket of illicit
liquor working from long back in the said village which is just two
kilometers from the police station. The petitioner(s) were held
responsible for the incident happened in the village and they were
found guilty by the Inquiry Officer for the charge levelled against
them. The Respondent No. 3 placed before the learned Writ Court
Memo No. 3132 dated 27.04.2016 and Memo No. 1064 dated
15.06.2020 (Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the counter affidavit
respectively ) to submit that by these memos, Respondent No. 3
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
had made it clear to all concerned that there is a total prohibition
of liquor manufacturing, selling, transportation and consumption
in the territory of the State of Bihar so, the responsibility to
implement the full prohibition was entrusted to all the policemen
posted in the State. It is his stand that the said order has been
ignored by the petitioner(s). Since the charges against petitioner(s)
were proved, respondent No. 3 justified his order passed under
Rule 853A (a) of the Police Manual.
15. A counter affidavit was also filed in C.W.J.C. No.
7906 of 2020 on behalf of the Police Inspector -cum- Conducting
Officer, OSD Office of S.P. (Respondent No. 8 ) which is only by
way of a formality. Respondent No. 8 has submitted that he had
complied with the order passed by Respondent No. 3 which is
under the mandate of law being a Sub-ordinate Officer of the
Respondent Authority. A plea of alternative remedy has been
raised saying that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before
the Respondent No. 2 under the statute, hence, the writ petition is
not sustainable.
Judgment of the Writ Court
16. The learned Writ Court set aside the impugned
orders. The reasoning and rationale for setting aside the impugned
orders are contained in paragraphs '30', '31' and '32' of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
impugned judgment (C.W.J.C. No. 7906 of 2020) which we
reproduce hereunder:−
"30. Coming now to the order passed by the Director
General-cum-Inspector General of Police dated
05.06.2020, it is noticed that the said order has
altogether fourteen paragraphs, out of which, only one
paragraph vaguely refers to and reiterates that all
police officers/personnel posted in the police station
had knowledge about preparation and sale of illicit
liquor in the concerned village situated hardly two kms
away from the police station. Registration of three
earlier criminal cases, namely, Gopalganj P.S. Case
Nos. 160/2016, 334/16 and 343/16 is the reason, which
has been assigned in the order why all the police
personnel/officers posted in the police station including
the petitioner must have been aware of the illegal
activities going on. There is absolutely no discussion in
the impugned order on the petitioner's representation
in response to the show cause notice issued to him. The
impugned order does not mention, as to why, the
explanation of the petitioner was not acceptable to
him."
"31. On perusal of the impugned order as well as other
documents relating to the departmental proceeding,
copies of which have been brought on record in the
present writ application, the Court forms an opinion
that it was in the nature of bare formality, which was
done on the part of the superior officers in the name of
taking disciplinary action possibly to contain the public
uproar arising after the occurrence, in which, 16
persons had died due to consumption of spurious
liquor. No effort at all was made in right earnest to take
disciplinary action against erring officials/personnel.
The charges were framed on presumption of
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
knowledge of the police personnel regarding the illegal
activities going on in the village concerned. No attempt
was made by leading cogent evidence to establish that
the petitioner was in fact aware of the illegal activities
going on in the village, hardly 2 kms away from the
Police Station and he failed to act in a matter befitting
his duties and responsibilities."
"32. In such view of the matter, the impugned order
requires interference. The impugned order dated
15.06.2020, is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is
directed to be reinstated forthwith. The consequences
of quashing of the impugned order shall follow and
accordingly the petitioner shall be entitled to the full
salary and other emoluments for the period during
which he remained out of service because of passing of
an illegal order."
17. As regards the plea of alternative remedy, the
learned Writ Court observed in paragraphs '28' and '29' of the
judgment as under:-
"28. A question may arise whether Bihar Police
Manual has statutory character or not. As is evident
from the preface of the Bihar Police Manual, the same
appears to have been issued by and with the authority
of the State Government under Section 7 and 12 of the
Police Act V, 1861. The Police Act, 1861 has been
repealed, to the extent the same relates to the State of
Bihar, by the Bihar Police Act, 2007. Section 29 of the
Bihar Police Act makes provisions for punishment,
subject to the provisions of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India. Nothing has been brought to the
Court's notice to show whether after enactment of
Bihar Police Act, 2007 special provisions have been
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
made laying down procedure or the manner of
imposition of punishment by way of disciplinary
action. No clear stand has been taken on behalf of the
State of Bihar, as to whether, the Bihar CCA Rules is
being followed or the guidelines issued under Bihar
Police Manual, for taking disciplinary action against
police personnel."
"29. Considering the nature of the impugned order,
which has been passed in the present case, I need not
go into the said aspect of the matter, suffice it to say
that no clear decision of the State Government has
been shown to this Court to the effect that the
procedure laid down under Bihar Police Manual apply
notwithstanding framing of Bihar CCA Rules in 2005.
I, however, consider it appropriate to direct the Chief
Secretary, Government of Bihar, to ensure that
necessary clarification is issued by the State
Government in accordance with law in respect of
applicability or otherwise of Bihar Government
Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
2005 for the police personnel in the State of Bihar in
view of subsequent enactment of Bihar Police Act,
2007. It goes without saying that the State of Bihar
may consider making appropriate statutory provisions
so as to overcome any ambiguity in the provisions
relating to taking of disciplinary action against police
personnel in the State of Bihar."
Submissions of the Appellant(s)
18. Mr. P.K. Verma, learned A.A.G. representing the
State of Bihar (the appellant) in these appeals has merely reiterated
the submission which was raised before the learned Writ Court. In
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
course of his submission, the learned Additional Advocate
General-3 has submitted that the learned Writ Court is not correct
in saying that an appeal under Rule 24 of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005 may be preferred only in respect of the orders which are
appealable under Rule 23 of the Bihar CCA Rules, namely, the
order of suspension and order of punishment. The learned AAG-3
has assailed the views expressed by the learned Writ Court that in
case of members of Civil Services, Group-C or Group-D, the
appeal shall lie to the authority to which, the authority making the
order appealed against is immediately sub-ordinate.
19. Learned A.A.G. submits that the findings of the
inquiry officer having remained unchallenged and the petitioner(s)
having accepted the punishment earlier imposed upon him/them by
the disciplinary authority cannot question the punishment of
his/their termination from service.
Submissions of the Respondent(s)
20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
petitioner(s)-respondent(s) have defended the impugned judgment
of the learned Writ Court. It is their common submission that the
present case is a case of no evidence. The petitioner(s) were
proceeded against on mere assumption of the fact that they had
knowledge of manufacturing of illicit liquor in the village. It is
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
submitted that the learned Writ Court has rightly held that perusal
of the impugned order as well as the other documents relating to
the departmental proceeding led to form an opinion that it was in
the nature of a mere formality which was done on the part of the
superior officer in the name of taking disciplinary action possibly
to contain the uproar arising after the occurrence in which sixteen
persons had died due to consumption of spurious liquor. No effort
at all was made in right earnest to take disciplinary action against
erring officials/persons. The learned Writ Court has categorically
recorded in it's judgment that no clear stand has been taken by the
State of Bihar, as to whether the Bihar CCA Rules or the
guidelines issued under the Police Manual is being followed for
taking disciplinary action against the police personnel. The learned
Writ Court, in fact, directed to the Chief Secretary, Government of
Bihar to ensure that necessary clarification is issued by the State
Government in accordance with law in respect of applicability or
otherwise of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 for the police personnel in
the State of Bihar in view of the subsequent enactment of Bihar
Police Act, 2007.
Consideration
21. We have heard learned A.A.G. for the appellant-
State of Bihar and learned counsel for the respondents. We would
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
first examine as to whether the learned Writ Court has committed
any error in taking a view that Rule 853A (a) of the Police Manual
and Rule 28 of the Bihar CCA Rules are two different and distinct
provisions and the provisions of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 in the
matter of a remedy against an order of punishment would be
applicable in case of members of Civil Services.
22. At first instance we take note of the fact that the
Bihar CCA Rules 2005 has been framed by the Government of
Bihar in exercise of it's power conferred by the proviso to the
Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Clause (d) of Bihar CCA
Rules defines 'Civil Services Cadre' which means all classes of
Civil Services of the State and it includes also all other similar
cadre or extra cadre existing posts under the State Government of
Bihar. Rule 4 under Part II provides for classification of Civil
Services in four categories:- (i) Group- A, (ii) Group- B, (iii)
Group-C and (iv) Group-D.
23. In the present case we are concerned with the
applicability of the provisions of appeal against the order under
853A (a) of the Police Manual. So far as the provisions of appeal
under the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 is concerned, Rule 23 and 24
under Part VII would be relevant, therefore, those are quoted
hereunder for a ready reference:-
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
"23. Orders against which appeal lies. A Government
Servant may prefer an appeal against order of suspension
or order of punishment."
"24. Appellate Authorities.- (1) A Government Servant,
including a person who has ceased to be in government
service, may prefer an appeal against the orders specified
in Rule 23 to the authority specified in this behalf by a
general or special order of the Government or, where no
such authority is specified:-
(i) where such Government Servant is or was a member of
Civil Service, Group-A or Group-B or holder of Civil
Post, Group-A or Group-B,-
(a) to the appointing authority, where the order appealed
against is made by an authority subordinate to it; or
(b) to the Government where such order is made by any
other authority;
(ii) where such Government servant is or was a member
of a Civil Service, Group-C or Group-D, to the authority
to which the authority making the order appealed against
is immediately subordinate."
(2) There shall be no appeal against the orders of the
Government, however, review petitions may be filed in
the form of Memorials.
(3) Where the person, who made the order appealed
against becomes, by virtue of his subsequent appointment
or otherwise, the appellate authority in respect of such
order, an appeal against such order shall lie to the
authority to which such person is immediately
subordinate or to an authority specially authorised for this
purpose by the Government."
24. Rule 28 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 provides for
an another remedy i.e. a Revision. Rule 28 reads as under:-
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
"28. Revision.- Notwithstanding anything contained in
these Rules,-
(i) the Government, or
(ii) the head of a department directly under the
Government, in the case of a Government servant
serving in a department or office, under the control of
such head of a department, or
(iii) the appellate authority, or
(iv) any other authority specified in this behalf by the
Government by a general or special order, and within
such time as may be prescribed in such general or
special order,
may at any time within six months of the date of the
order proposed to be revised, either on his or its own
motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry
and revise any order made under these Rules or under
the Rules repealed by the Rule 32 (from which an appeal
is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred
or from which no appeal is allowed), after consultation
with the Commission where such consultation is
necessary, and may-
(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order, or
(b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty
imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no
penalty has been imposed, or
(c) remit the case to the authority, making the order or to
any other authority, directing such authority, to make
such further inquiry as he may consider proper in the
circumstances of the case, or
(d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit:
Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any
penalty shall be made by any revising authority unless
the Government Servant concerned has been given a
reasonable opportunity of making a representation
against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
impose any of the penalties specified in clauses(vi) to (x)
of Rule 14 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the
order sought to be revised to any of the penalties
specified in those clauses, no such penalty shall be
imposed without an inquiry in the manner laid down in
Rule 17 and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the
Government Servant concerned of showing cause
against the penalty proposed on the evidence adduced
during the inquiry and except after consultation with the
Commission where such consultation is necessary:
Provided further that rib power of revision shall be
exercised by the head of department, unless-
(i) the authority which made the order in appeal, or
(ii) the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no
appeal has been preferred,
is subordinate to him.
(2) No proceeding for revision shall be commenced until
after
(i) the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal, or
(ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has
been preferred.
(3) An application for revision shall be dealt with in the
same manner as if it were an appeal under these Rules."
25. At this stage, it is important to note that the Bihar
CCA Rules 2005 has a repeal and savings provision contained in
Rule '32' which reads as under:-
"32. Repeal and Savings.- The Notification No.-III/RM01/63-
8051 -A dated 3rd July, 1963 adopting the Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and the
Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1935 as well as Notifications making
amendments in the said two Rules are hereby repealed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
(2) All instructions issued under the Civil Services
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930 and the Bihar
and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1935 from time to time are hereby repealed.
(3) Anything done or any action taken in exercise of the
powers under the Civil Services (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 1930 and the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate
Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1935 shall be deemed
to have been done or taken in exercise of the powers
conferred by or under those Rules as if those Rules were in
force on the day on which such thing or action was done or
taken.
(4) Nothing in these Rules shall operate to deprive any person
of any right of appeal, which he would have had if these
Rules had not been made in respect of any order passed
before they came in force.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules any
departmental proceedings initiated under the Rules repealed
shall continue under those Rules including the Appeal
preferred against any punishment imposed as if those Rules
were still in existence."
26. Now, we take a glance over some relevant provisions
of the Police Manual. In Rule 834(a) imposition of black marks
has been discussed. It provides that:
(a) As forfeiture affects pension, black marks may
be awarded in appropriate casses to all officers of
and below the rank of Inspector and to all
ministerial officers of the department. Not more
than one black mark shall be awarded for anyone
offence except when more turpitude can reasonably
be inferred.
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
(b) Three black marks shall ordinarily entail
forfeiture or withholding of an increment, the
period of which shall be specified in the order and
after the period is over, the officer will be restored
to his former position. Such forfeiture or
withholding of an increment shall not carry any
black mark value.
Rule 835 provides for effect of black marks, a reduction or
forfeiture or withholding of increment for a specific offence shall
carry the following black mark value:-
(i) A reduction, etc. up to six months .... 1 black mark.
(ii) A reduction, etc. u to twelve months...... 2 black
marks
(iii) A reduction , etc. for longer than twelve months... 3
black marks.
It further provides for whatever be the number of black marks
in any one act of delinquency, it shall still count as one major
punishment.
27. Rule 837 provides the general rules as to black
marks.- Black marks shall remain permanently on record, and shall
be taken into consideration in deciding the nature and extent of
subsequent punishments subject to provision of rule 826 provided
that due allowance shall be made for good serve marks and any
other recognition of good work on record in the delinquent's
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
favour. The order awarding black marks shall specify the number
of black marks outstanding against the delinquent, and when the
imposition of one more black mark may result in loss of increment
under these rules, the order shall warn him that such is the fact.
28. Rule 838 talks of minor punishments. Rule 839 talks
of punishment drill. Rule 851 (a) provides that no appeal shall lie
except in cases of major punishment enumerated in rule 828. Rule
828 refers the punishment mentioned under Serial (a) to (f) of
rule 824. Black mark is under serial (f) of Rule 824, therefore, this
is appealable. Under clause (b) of Rule 851, an appeal against an
order passed by a Superintendent shall lie before the Deputy
Inspector General and by virtue of Clause (c) of 851 , the orders
of appellate authority shall be final subject to the provisions at
Rule 853.
Rule 853 and 853A are required to be quoted hereunder for a
ready reference:-
"853. Memorials and revision.- No memorial or
petition, which is a representation against an order
passed in a disciplinary case shall be submitted to any
authority other than the authority which under the rule
for the time being in force is empowered to entertain
the appeal: Provided that an officer of the rank not
below the rank of sub-Inspector may, if a final order of
dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank has been
passed in appeal against him in a disciplinary case,
submit to Government through the proper channel a
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
memorial against such order, within six months after
the date on which the officer submitting the memorial
was informed of the order on appeal:
Provided further that memorials of and and below the
rank of Assistant Sub-Inspectors shall be entertained
by Inspector-General only in cases of dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank if they are submitted
within a period of six months after the date on which
the memorialst was informed of the order passed in
the appeal:
Provided further that the Inspector-General shall
submit quarterly to government a statement of
memorials from Police officers below the rank of Sub-
Inspector which have been withheld by him under the
provisions of these rules."
"853A. (a) Inspector-General may call for the file in
any case even when no appeal lies and pass such order
as he may deem fit. The Deputy Inspector-General
may call for any file but he should refer it to the
Inspector-General with his recommendation for his
order. The above action should be taken within a
reasonable time from the date of final order in
departmental proceeding.
(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules
the State Government may call for the proceedings in
any disciplinary case even when no appeal or
memorial lies, and pass such order as it may deem fit.
(c) When an appeal has been filed and the Inspector-
General on applying his mind thinks that he should
enhance the punishment, he can dismiss the appeal but
must simultaneously mention in that order that as per
powers given in the rule 853A (a), he has decided to
review it for enhancement and take action for
obtaining a show cause, etc.., where necessary."
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
29. Bihar Police Manual have been discussed in the Full
Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Kashi Nath Singh
Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. Reported in 2019(2) PLJR 293
(HC). The Hon'ble Full Bench has held that the Police Manual
has got approval of the cabinet and has been notified under the
orders of the Governor, will govern the field pertaining to the
matters relating to the recruitment, appointment, promotion,
punishment, transfer, leave, retirement etc., in the Police Service
until by a legislative enactment, statutory rules are framed by the
State Government. The Hon'ble Chief Justice presiding over the
Full Bench has held in paragraph '6' of the judgment as under:-
"6. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the
Bihar Police Manual is a compilation of administrative
instructions or Government orders then if a pre-
Constitution Act, namely the Police Act, 1861 has been
taken recourse to for framing certain revised
administrative instructions, they can also be construed
to be in continuation of such laws and instructions (in
the present case the Bihar and Orissa Police Manual,
1930) that were in force immediately before the
commencement of the Constitution so as to save State
action keeping in view the provisions of Article 313 of
the Constitution of India. I would like to adopt the
reasoning of the principle which leans in favour of even
saving administrative instructions that may be
necessary for governance in the absence of Statutory
Rules or any law to the contrary. The Bihar Police
Manual is a compilation which has continued to be
observed for the purpose, as presently involved, for
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
appointments throughout the State in the Bihar Police
Forces. It therefore has the mandate of the Government
which in turn is entrusted with the obligation of
governance including police administration being an
exclusive State subject. The observance of the
instructions contained in the Bihar Police Manual are
binding on the State of Bihar and even it is argued that
some of the provisions are directory in nature, then too
even such provisions are not meant to be disobeyed or
acted in breach thereof. A Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court while interpreting the provisions
of Regulation 541 of U.P. Police Regulations relating to
termination and period of probation held that the
regulations did have mandatory force. The said
judgment is in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. vs.
Radha Kishan and Anr. (Writ Petition No. 8251 (S/B)
of 1987) decided on 23.12.2009."
"7. I am therefore inclined to hold that even though the
compilation of the Bihar Police Manual cannot be
described as rule or regulation having been framed in
the exercise of powers under any statutory law, and
may not partake the nature either of subordinate or
delegated legislation, yet the Bihar Police Manual being
binding on the Government, they deserve to be
followed by the respondents so long as no rule is been
framed in this regard."
30. In the present case, admittedly, the Inspector-
General-cum-Director General of Police has exercised his
revisional power under Rule 853 A of the Bihar Police Manual. By
no stretch of imagination, it may be held that the said order of the
revisional authority in the Bihar Police Manual would be
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
appealable under Rule 24 of the Bihar CCA Rules. We, therefore,
find that the views expressed by the learned Writ Court is
perfectly right and is in consonance with the views of the Hon'ble
Full Bench.
31. In course of hearing, in fact, Mr. P.K. Verma, learned
A.A.G. is once again not in a position to show that the Bihar CCA
Rues would be applicable in respect of the police personnel who
are governed by the Police Manual. We, therefore, find no
substance in the submission of learned AAG 3 on this score. The
submissions are liable to be rejected.
32. As regards the punishment imposed by the Director
General of Police in exercise of his revisional power is concerned,
we are of the opinion that the views expressed by the learned Writ
Court needs no interference. As discussed above, the black mark
awarded to the writ petitioner(s) is a major punishment under
Clause (f) of the Rule 824 of the Police Manual. It is an
appealable order. Neither the writ petitioner(s) nor the Department
preferred any appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary
authority. Under Rule 853A (a) Inspector-General may call for the
file in any case even when no appeal lies and pass such order as he
may deem fit. Under the same provision, the Deputy Inspector-
General may call for any file but he should refer it to the
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
Inspector-General with his recommendation for his order. This
action should be taken within a reasonable time from the date of
final order and departmental proceedings.
33. A reading of the complete scheme of Rule 853A
would show that while clause (a) takes care of those cases in
which no appeal lies, (emphasis supplied) Clause (C) of the Rule
853A provides that when an appeal has been filed and the
Inspector-General on applying his mind thinks that he should
enhance the punishment, he can dismiss the appeal but must
simultaneously mention in that order that as per powers given in
the rule 853A (a), he has decided to review it for enhancement and
take action for obtaining a show cause, etc. where necessary.
34. It is to be remembered that this is not a case in which
an appeal was filed before the Inspector-General-cum-Director
General of Police. From reading of the orders impugned before the
learned Writ Court passed by the respondent no. 3, it appears that
the Deputy Inspector General of Police called for the records and
referred the same to the Inspector-General-cum-Director General
of Police whereupon the respondent no. 3 called for a show cause
and on receipt of the same, took a view that the writ petitioners are
guilty of doubtful conduct and dereliction in duty but the
punishment awarded to him/them is lesser.
Patna High Court L.P.A No. 121 of 2021 dt.04-03-2025
35. As noticed above, no appeal was filed in this matter
hence the Inspector General-cum-Director General of Police had
no occasion to exercise his power under clause (c) of Rule 853A of
the Police Manual. In addition, the learned Writ Court has found
that there is absolutely no discussion in the impugned order on the
petitioners' representation in response to the show cause notice
issued to him. The impugned order does not mention as to why the
explanation of the petitioner(s) was not acceptable to the
respondent no. 3. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that
the impugned order(s) suffered from jurisdictional error for both
the reasons. No infirmity or illegality may be found in the
judgment of the learned writ court.
36. In result, these Letter Patent Appeals are dismissed,
however, there will be no order as to cost.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
lekhi/avin/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 17.03.2025
Transmission Date
