Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar No. 2 vs The State Of Bihar Through The Home ... on 6 March, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.819 of 2021
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar No. 2, Son of Shri Keshav Mahto, Resident of village-
Khutkhat, P.S. - Sikandara, District- Jamui (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The ADG, (Law and Order), Bihar, Patna.
4. The DIG (Central Range), Gaya.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Nawada.
6. The ASP (Abhiyan), Nawada.
7. The DSP (Reserve), Police Line, Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG- 3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 06-03-2025
Heard Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, learned Advocate for
the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order issued
under the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Nawada, as
contained in Memo No. 3344 dated 05.08.2019, whereby the
services of the petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector of
Police came to be dismissed. The petitioner also assailed the
order dated 16.04.2020, passed by the Additional Deputy
General of Police (Law and Order), Bihar, Patna by which the
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
2/18
appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Director General of
Police, Bihar, Patna also stood rejected. During the pendency of
the writ petition, the Memorial preferred by the petitioner also
came to be rejected vide order dated 28.07.2022, which also put
to challenge by filing an interlocutory application, bearing I.A.
No. 1 of 2022.
3. Shorn of lengthy details, the materials available
on record disclosed that while the petitioner was posted as Sub-
Inspector of Police, Sirdala Police Station, Nawada, he was
made incharge of Station House Officer of Sirdala Police Station
on 21.12.2018. On 22.12.2018, a Special raid was conducted
with the help of Special Team at village Bithia, in course of
special drive to implement complete prohibition of liquor. In
course of raid, two persons were apprehended with their
respective motorcycles, carrying illicit liquor, and brought to the
police station. Later on, both the apprehended persons were
released by the petitioner, this led to issuance of a show-cause
notice, containing Memo of Charge alleging therein that during
the course of raid by a Special Team, two persons were
apprehended with their respective motorcycles and from their
possession 25-30 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from a
sack, which was destroyed by the Special Team. 3-4 litres of
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
3/18
illicit liquor, was also recovered from the dickey of the
motorcycles, that was seized along with the motorcycles. Both
the accused persons and the motorcycles were brought to the
police station, but the petitioner, who was holding the post of
officer-in-charge of the concerned police station released the
apprehended persons without institution of the F.I.R. and the
preparation of seizure list, only on their personal bond. The
Memo of Charge (izi= 'd') contains the list of documents as
well as list of witnesses. By the said letter itself, the Conducting
Officer as well as Presenting Officer were appointed.
4. On receipt of Memo of Charge, the petitioner
submitted his show-cause before the Conducting Officer and
while refuting all the imputations, pleaded to exonerate him
from the charges. During the enquiry, the Conducting Officer
has recorded evidence of all the witnesses and after completing
the enquiry submitted its report finding all the charges proved
against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Nawada
agreeing with the finding of the conducting officer
recommended for dismissal of the petitioner from the services to
the Deputy Inspector General of Police and directed the
petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of ten days.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his detailed
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
4/18
explanation/reply, but the same did not find any favour and the
petitioner is inflicted with the punishment of dismissal.
5. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal,
bearing Appeal No. 19 of 2020, before the Appellate Authority
(Director General of Police, Patna) on 04.04.2019. The said
appeal was transferred to Additional Director General (Law and
Order), Bihar, Patna to consider and pass an order; accordingly,
the appeal came to be heard and rejected vide order dated
16.04.2020.
6
. Learned Advocate for the petitioner assailing the
impugned orders contended that the Superintendent of Police,
Nawada was neither the appointing authority nor the
disciplinary authority of the petitioner and thus not the
competent authority, had the jurisdiction to issue Memo of
Charge as well as to make recommendation for dismissal of the
petitioner from service. It was only the respondent no.3, Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya, who was the
competent authority. The petitioner had never been asked to
participate in the entire departmental proceeding, except on the
date of evidence of one police Inspector and two other
witnesses. The Conducting Officer has recorded the evidence of
all the constables behind the back of the petitioner and he has
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
not been allowed any opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses. The Conducting Officer did not follow the
prescription for imposing major penalty, as enumerated under
Sub-Rule 11 to 15 of Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules, 2005'), apart from complete
transgression to Rule 18 and 26 of the Bihar Police Manual.
7. The Conducting Officer failed to record any
reason and finding based upon which the allegation against the
petitioner said to be proved; the entire enquiry was conducted in
a mechanical manner. The impugned order of dismissal also
reflects no application of mind and only reiterated and re-affirms
the enquiry report. There is no consideration of the show-cause
reply of the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner
before the respondent no.2 was to be decided by him only and
the transfer of appeal to respondent no.4 and rejection thereof by
respondent no.4 is wholly without jurisdiction. The petitioner in
his written defence statement and explanation has categorically
stated that he had never been informed of keeping 3-4 litres of
illicit liquor in the dickey of the motorcycle and the enquiry
officer as well as disciplinary authority proceeded only on
presumption and hypothesis.
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
8. The order passed on the Memorial of the
petitioner is also nothing, but a mere formality and thus came to
be rejected in a most mechanical manner. There is no discussion
as to how the allegation made against the petitioner stands
proved, apart from no consideration of the grounds raised by the
petitioner.
9. To support the aforenoted contention, learned
Advocate for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the
relevant provisions of Rules, 2005 as well as Bihar Police
Manual, 1978 as well as various decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
10. Dispelling the aforenoted contention, learned
Advocate for the State has contended that in respect to the
charges, specifically mentioned, hereinabove, an enquiry was
conducted at the level of Circle Inspector, Rajauli, who
submitted his report on being found the petitioner guilty under
Memo No. 1824/18 dated 23.12.2018, which led to suspension
of the petitioner and issuance of Memo of Charge (izi= 'd'). The
Superintendent of Police, being the disciplinary authority was
the competent authority to issue Memo of Charge and on receipt
of the enquiry report, having found the charges proved, he
rightly recommended for dismissal of the petitioner. The order
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
of dismissal had been passed by the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Magadh Range, Gaya vide Memo No. 1498 dated
01.08.2019, which was later on communicated to the petitioner
by the Superintendent of Police, Nawada vide Memo No. 3344
dated 05.08.2019. The Appeal as well as Memorial preferred by
the petitioner also did not find any favour and came to be
rejected. During enquiry, the witnesses were examined by the
Conducting Officer in presence of the petitioner, but the
delinquent petitioner refused to cross-examine the witnesses and
he acknowledged this fact by putting his signature in the
deposition of the witnesses. The petitioner was accorded
sufficient opportunity of hearing at all the stages and the
impugned order of dismissal has been passed considering the
show-cause explanation of the petitioner and after all
deliberation and discussions of the materials available on record.
11. This Court has heard the learned Advocate for
the respective parties and also meticulously perused the
materials available on record. Certain facts are admitted that on
the alleged date of incidence, the petitioner was working as
incharge SHO of Sirdala police station. The petitioner was not
the party to the raid, the two accused persons and the
motorcycles were apprehended and seized by the raiding party,
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
who are the witnesses to the enquiry. After going through their
depositions, all of them have reiterated and re-affirmed their
statement that on 22.12.2018 in course of raid two persons, who
were moving on motorcycles were chased and apprehended;
from their possession 25-30 litres of illicit liquor was recovered
from a sack, which was destroyed in the forest itself. 3-4 litres
of illicit liquor was also found in the dickey of one of the
motorcycle. The apprehended persons were brought to Sirdala
police station through a Police Van, whereafter both the
apprehended persons and the motorcycles along with the liquor
kept in the dickey were handed over to the Munshi of the Police
Station, where ASI Devendra Kumar was also present. None of
the witnesses examined by the Conducting Officer has
whispered about the presence of the petitioner either at the time
of raid or handing over of the accused persons with their
motorcycle and illicit liquor. Neither the Munshi of the Sirdala
Police Station nor the ASI Devendra Kumar were examined in
support of the charges or to controvert the explanation of the
petitioner that when he returned back to Sirdala Police Station at
around 7.30 P.M. after attending a crime meeting, headed by the
Superintendent of Police, Nawada, it was only told by the
raiding party that liquor recovered has been destroyed and
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
moreover even the seizure list dated 22.12.2018 does not
disclose any recovery of liquor from the dickey of the
motorcycle. Since the petitioner was having no knowledge about
the liquor seized from the dickey of the motorcycle; in the said
premise, he sought an opinion from the Superintendent of
Police, Nawada and ASP Abhiyan, Nawada and on their
instruction, the apprehended persons were released.
12. Admittedly the petitioner was holding the post
of Sub-Inspector of Police and thus it is the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, who is the appointing authority as well as
disciplinary authority of the petitioner. Rule 17(2) of the Rules,
2005 clearly postulates that wherever the disciplinary authority
is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring about the
truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a
government servant, he may himself inquire into it, or appoint
under these Rules an authority to inquire about the truth thereof.
13. Sub-Rule 3 thereof obligates the disciplinary
authority to draw up or cause to be drawn up, the substance of
the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour as a definite and
distinct article of charge; a statement of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge,
which shall contains a list of such document by which, and a list
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
of such witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed
to be sustained by him.
14. The issue regarding initiation of a disciplinary
proceeding under the order of the Superintendent of Police,
while the disciplinary authority of the Sub-Inspector is the
Inspector General of Police and thus the very initiation of
proceeding by an authority, who is not competent to do so and
illegal has come up for consideration before a learned Bench of
this Court in the case of Uday Pratap Singh Vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors., reported in 2017(4) PLJR 195. The learned
Court having considered the Rule 2 (f) and 2 (j) and 16 of the
Rules has been pleased to observed that it is only either the
appointing authority or any authority authorized by it or an
authority authorized by special or general order, who would be
competent to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against a
Government servant. The learned Bench of this Court while
holding the aforesaid proposition has reiterated the ratio laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of
Defence Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in AIR
2012 SC 2250 whereby the Hon'ble Court held in no uncertain
terms "that charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of
challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued
by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary
proceedings." Referring to the facts of the case, the learned
Court has crystallized that the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Patna, who has initiated the proceeding against the petitioner by
service of charge memo placed at Annexure-6 and which also
directs the petitioner to file his reply before the Senior
Superintendent of Police but then in absence of any
authorization given to the Senior Superintendent of Police either
under the Bihar Police Manual or by the Inspector General of
Police being the appointing authority or the Deputy Inspector
General of Police being the Disciplinary Authority to initiate the
process, the very initiation is without jurisdiction.
15. In the case in hand, the position is identical to
that of Uday Pratap Singh, to the extent there is no authorization
given to the Superintendent of Police, Nawada under the Bihar
Police Manual nor any direction of the disciplinary or
appointing authority to initiate process.
16. Now coming to the impugned order, this Court
finds that although explicitly all the charges, defence statement
of the petitioner, opinion of the Presenting Officer and the report
of the Conducting Officer, but unfortunately there is no
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
discussion of the show-cause reply filed by the petitioner, all the
more no reason has been assigned as to why the show-cause
explanation filed by the petitioner did not find favour. The
Superintendent of Police, Nawada while communicating the
order of punishment under Memo No. 3344 dated 05.08.2019
has informed the decision of the Deputy Inspector General of
Police. The said order only states that after thorough
examination and analysis of the materials as well as
recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, the
disciplinary authority finds that the charges against the petitioner
is of serious in nature, which stood proved by the Conducting
Officer, hence inflicted the punishment of dismissal from
service, basing upon the enquiry report and the
recommendation. The similar is the order of the Appellate
Authority, who only narrated the original order of punishment
and rejected the Memo of Appeal and the Memorial also came to
be rejected without assigning any reason as to why the grounds
raised therein did not find favour.
17. A quasi judicial order passed by a quasi judicial
authority after giving a show-cause notice must display
complete application of mind to the grounds mentioned in the
show-cause notice. The importance of giving reason has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
emphasized and explained by the Apex Court in Kranti
Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496.
it would be worth benefiting to encapsulate paragraph 47
thereof.
"47. Summarising the above
discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend
has always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority
must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of
reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not
only be done it must also appear to be done
as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also
operates as a valid restraint on any
possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and
quasi-judicial or even administrative
power.
(e) Reasons reassure that
discretion has been exercised by the
decision-maker on relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
become as indispensable a component of a
decision-making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial,
quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the
process of judicial review by superior
courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend
in all countries committed to rule of law
and constitutional governance is in favour
of reasoned decisions based on relevant
facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of
judicial decision-making justifying the
principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-
judicial opinions these days can be as
different as the judges and authorities who
deliver them. All these decisions serve one
common purpose which is to demonstrate
by reason that the relevant factors have
been objectively considered. This is
important for sustaining the litigants' faith
in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a
requirement for both judicial accountability
and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-
judicial authority is not candid enough
about his/her decision-making process then
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
it is impossible to know whether the person
deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of
decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-
stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a
valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that
transparency is the sine qua non of
restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision-making not only
makes the judges and decision-makers less
prone to errors but also makes them subject
to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in
Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100
Harvard Law Review 731-37].)
(n) Since the requirement to
record reasons emanates from the broad
doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the
said requirement is now virtually a
component of human rights and was
considered part of Strasbourg
Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain
[(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para
29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001
EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court
referred to Article 6 of the European
Convention of Human Rights which
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons
must be given for judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law
jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in
setting up precedents for the future.
Therefore, for development of law,
requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a
part of "due process"
18. Time without number, the Apex Court as well as
this Court has held that the reasons are heart and soul of an order
giving insight to the mind of the maker of the order, and that he
considered all relevant aspect and eschewed irrelevant aspects.
This Court tempted to quote the relevant pragraph of the
decision of the learned Division bench of this Court in the case
of Kems Services Private Limited v. State of Bihar, (2014) 1
PLJR 622, which reads as follows:
"11. Natural justice is a word
of very wide connotation. It cannot be put
in any straight jacket formula. Its
applicability shall depend on facts of each
case. It cannot mean only fulfillment of the
formality for giving of a show cause notice
and acceptance of a reply. The final order
must display complete application of mind
to the grounds mentioned in the show
cause notice, the defence taken in reply,
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
followed by at least a brief analysis of the
defence supported by reasons why it was
not acceptable. To hold that the cause
shown can be cursorily rejected in one line
by saying that it was not satisfactory or
acceptable in our opinion shall be vesting
completely arbitrary and uncanalised
powers in the authority. In a given
situation if the authority concerned finds
the cause shown to be difficult to deal and
reject, it shall be very convenient for him
not to discuss the matter and reject it by
simply stating that it was not acceptable.
The giving of reasons in such a situation is
an absolute imperative and a facet of
natural justice. Reasons have been held to
be the heart and soul of an order giving
insight to the mind of the maker of the
order, and that he considered all relevant
aspect and eschewed irrelevant aspects."
19. In view of the discussions made hreinabove,
this Court is of the view that the impugned order of dismissal
passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order passed
in the Appeal and the Memorial are wholly perverse, cryptic and
without application of mind in complete violation of the fair
play and principles of natural justice, Accordingly, the order
issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Police,
Patna High Court CWJC No.819 of 2021 dt.06-03-2025
Nawada, as contained in Memo No. 3344 dated 05.08.2019, the
order dated 16.04.2020, passed by the Additional Deputy
General of Police (Law and Order), Bihar, Patna and order dated
28.07.2022 passed in Memorial, are hereby set aside.
20. On account of setting aside all the impugned
orders, the consequences shall follow:
21. The writ petition stands allowed. There shall be
no order as to cost.
22. The pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 04.02.2025
Uploading Date 07.03.2025
Transmission Date NA
