Patna High Court
Satyendra Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Bihar on 18 March, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13380 of 2022
======================================================
Satyendra Kumar Gupta, son of Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, Resident of Village-
Bauraha, P.S.- Birpur, District- Supaul.
... ... 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 Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Under Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order-cum-Appellate
Authority, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Araria.
8. The Enquiry Officer-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Forbesganj,
District- Araria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Teerthankar, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Verma, AAG- 3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-03-2025
The petitioner is represented through Mr. Vinay
Ranjan, learned Advocate and the State respondents through Mr.
P. K. Verma, learned Senior Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate
General No.-3.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as
contained in Memo No. 1108 dated 08.12.2020, issued under the
signature of Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
2/20
whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of
dismissal from service. The challenge has also been made to the
order, as contained in letter no. 106 dated 02.03.2021, by which
the Departmental Appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be
rejected; further, the order, as contained in letter no. 6101 dated
23.06.2022
, issued under the signature of Under Secretary to the
Government of Bihar, whereby the Memorial Appeal against the
appellate order also came to be rejected.
3. The facts in brief, as culled out from the materials
available on record, are incorporated hereinunder:
(i) The petitioner was duly inducted in Bihar Police
Service as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2009. While he
was posted as S.H.O. Baunsi police station, one Mukesh
Mukhiya was brought in the police station in drunken position,
but allegedly he was released by the petitioner from the police
station itself after accepting bribe of Rs.8,000/- through
Chaukidar, namely, Raj Kumar. Further, on that date itself, one
another person, namely, Asfaque was also arrested with five
bottles of Corex Cough Syrup on his motorcycle, leading to
institution of the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner.
(ii) One Surendra Paswan, Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police, was appointed as investigating officer of the said case,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
but initially he refused to accept the case for investigation,
whereupon some hot exchange of abusive talk took place,
resulting into a complaint filed by ASI Surendra Paswan to the
Superintendent of Police, Araria along with the name of the
witnesses, who had allegedly seen the occurrence. It is also
alleged that the petitioner after accepting bribe of Rs.15,000/-
from the family members of accused Asfaque, released the
motorcycle illegally. The aforesaid incident and on receipt of the
written complaint, led to issuance of Memo No. 19481 dated
01.07.2019 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Araria
directing the Sergeant Major to enquire the matter and submit
his report. In compliance thereto, the Sergeant Major submitted
his enquiry report on 05.07.2019.
(iii) The Superintendent of Police, Araria, on being
dissatisfied with the report vide Memo No. 20234 dated
07.07.2019 asked the Sergeant Major to submit a fresh enquiry
report on the point mentioned therein. A fresh enquiry report
was submitted on 12.07.2019, but this report did not satisfy the
Superintendent of Police, Araria leading to fresh enquiry and the
Sergeant Major again submitted his 3rd enquiry report on
19.07.2019. This time also, the report could not satisfy the
Superintendent of Police, Araria, who vide Memo No. 30470
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
dated 20.07.2019 asked for another enquiry report, whereupon
the enquiry report dated 26.07.2019 was submitted but the
Superintendent of Police, Araria directed for a fresh enquiry and
lastly 5th enquiry report was submitted by the Sergeant Major on
07.08.2019.
(iv) After receipt of the enquiry report, explanation
was sought for by the petitioner, who in response thereto
submitted his explanation. The explanation submitted by the
petitioner was not found satisfactory, hence the Memo of
Charge against the petitioner in (Prapatra ' d') was framed by
the Superintendent of Police, as contained in Memo No. 3038
dated 11.10.2019 and Memo No. 3788 dated 07.12.2019
directing the petitioner to submit his explanation. Subsequent
thereto, a fresh Memo of Charge, as contained in Memo No.
3922 dated 18.12.2019 issued incorporating the Departmental
Proceeding No. 30/2019 against the petitioner. The Sub-
Divisional Police Officer, Forbesganj was appointed as
Conducting Officer. One Gopal Jee Singh was also appointed as
the Presenting Officer.
(v) The petitioner in response to all the Article of
charges submitted his written-defence statement and after
completion of the enquiry in the said departmental proceeding
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
no. 30/2019, the enquiry report was submitted holding the
petitioner guilty of the charges levelled in the Memo of Charge.
On receipt of the enquiry report, the Superintendent of Police,
Araria vide Memo No. 2120 dated 04.08.2020 issued second
show-cause notice seeking explanation of the petitioner in the
light of the enquiry report, which was duly responded by the
petitioner. The explanation of the petitioner did not satisfy the
Superintendent of Police, Araria, who vide its Memo No. 2267
dated 18.08.2020 sent its recommendation to the Inspector
General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea for
dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement from service. The
petitioner was also directed to submit explanation before the
Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea, which was
duly complied by the petitioner.
(vi) Finally, the impugned order of dismissal, as
contained in Memo No. 1108 dated 08.12.2020 came to be
passed by the Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range,
Purnea, being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the
petitioner. Aggrieved with the aforenoted order of dismissal, the
petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Additional
Director General of Police (Law & Order), Patna, which did not
find favour and came to be rejected. The petitioner's Memorial
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
appeal preferred before the Home Secretary (Police), Home
Department, Bihar was also rejected vide Memo No. 6101 dated
26.03.2022.
4. While assailing the impugned orders, learned
Advocate for the petitioner primarily contended that the
petitioner was Sub-Inspector of Police, thus the Disciplinary
Authority of the petitioner was non-else, but the Deputy
Inspector General/Inspector General of Police, as per the Bihar
Police Manual. Referring to Rule 16(1)(a) of the Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules, 2005') it is
contended that it is the only appointing authority or the
Disciplinary Authority, who may proceed against the petitioner,
but in the present case, the Superintendent of Police, Araria
asked the explanation and framed the Memo of Charge as well
as recommended for dismissal, which is wholly without
jurisdiction. Consecutive enquiry at the dictate of the
Superintendent of Police, Araria till his satisfaction suggesting
the materials to proceed against the petitioner departmentally is
actuated with mala fide on the part of the authorities, especially
the Superintendent of Police, Araria. It is further contended that
for one proceeding, altogether three article of charges have been
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
framed; moreover, the charges were completely vague and all of
them were issued in gross violation of Rule 17 of the CCA
Rules, 2005. The disciplinary proceeding, even if admitted, was
commenced on issuance of second charge memo, but the same
was not consistent to the provisions contained in Bihar Charge-
sheet Rule, 2017. All the more, the charges have not been
explained, rather preliminary enquiry report or fact finding
report, including the statement of witnesses and different orders
of the Superintendent of Police was mentioned therein. None of
the eye witness to the alleged seizure of motorcycle and
subsequent release was made witness, which is not only against
the provisions of law, but also against strict instruction issued
and circulated by the Headquarter of the Bihar Police time to
time.
5. The explanation sought for by the Superintendent
of Police in the capacity of the Disciplinary Authority and the
recommendation made to the Disciplinary Authority-cum-
Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea for dismissal
from service and on the basis thereupon impugned punishment
of dismissal was passed is nothing, but a gross violation of the
Bihar Police Manual as well as CCA Rules, 2005, apart from in
complete transgression to the instructions issued from the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
Police Headquarter. Reliance has been placed on a learned
Single Judge decision of this Court dated 18.08.2019 passed in
the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 6530 of 2017) and further in the case of
Dharmendra Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
(C.W.J.C. No. 470 of 2018).
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to the
impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has further
contended that apart from the order being cryptic in nature, the
same has been passed in mechanical manner without assigning
any reason for rejecting the explanation of the petitioner.
Similarly the Appellate Authority did not take notice of the
aforesaid errors committed by the enquiry officer,
Superintendent of Police as well as the Disciplinary Authority,
while rejecting the departmental appeal of the petitioner.
Grounds raised by the petitioner in the Memorial appeal has also
been ignored by the Government.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General,
Mr. P. K. Verma, submitted that since the preliminary enquiry
was not conducted in the manner, it was required to be done, the
Superintendent of Police, Araria directed for fresh enquiry on
the point allegedly complained against the petitioner. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
allegation levelled in the complaint was substantiated in the
preliminary enquiry, which led to issuance of Memo of charge.
Since in first Memo of charge, no Conducting Officer and the
Presenting Officer was appointed, hence a fresh Memo of
charge was issued. Moreover for this reason, the departmental
proceeding cannot be faulted. The Memo of charge contained
the list of documents as well as list of witnesses by which the
charges were proposed to be proved. During enquiry, the
witnesses were examined, who supported the charges. The
explanation of the petitioner was duly considered by the
Conducting Officer. Moreover, after thorough enquiry, the
charges were found proved, leading to issuance of the second
show-cause notice. The Superintendent of Police, being fully
satisfied with the findings of the enquiry report vide its Memo
No. 2267 dated 18.08.2020 made its recommendation to the
Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea for
dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement of the petitioner from
his service. It is the Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range,
Purnea, who having considered the materials available on
record, has inflicted the punishment of dismissal. All the more,
the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, duly affirmed by
the Appellate Authority as well as by the Home Secretary
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
(Police), Home Department, Bihar.
8. Learned Senior Advocate for the State lastly
contended that the procedure required under the law was duly
followed, leading to dismissal of the petitioner. So far the scope
of judicial review in a departmental proceeding is very limited
and the Court cannot sit in appeal and cannot re-appreciate the
evidence, hence no interference is warranted.
9. This Court has anxiously heard the learned
Advocate for the respective parties and also perused the
materials available on record.
10. Before dealing with the issue germane for
adjudication, this Court deprecates the manner in which
consecutively enquiry was directed, one after another, as also
the issuance of three Memo of Charges for one and the same
departmental proceeding. Suffice it to observe that evidence
recorded in a preliminary enquiry cannot be used for a regular
enquiry, as the delinquent is not associated with it and
opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in
preliminary enquiry is not given. Though, this issue has been
crystallized by the Constitution Bench time to time, but it would
worth benefiting to observe here that the Constitution Bench of
Apex Court in Amalendu Ghosh Vs North Eastern Railway,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
reported in, AIR 1960 SC 992, held that the purpose of holding
a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular fact is prima
facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been
committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in
preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. It
may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular
disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be
held.
11. Similarly, in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah Vs.
Union of India, reported in, AIR 1964 SC 1854, a Constitution
Bench of Apex Court while taking a similar view held that
preliminary inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry.
The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It is merely for the
satisfaction of the Government though usually for the sake of
fairness, an explanation may be sought from the government
servant even at such an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no right
to be heard as the inquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the
Government as to whether a regular inquiry must be held.
12. Reiterating the aforenoted proposition, the Apex
Court in the case of Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar Vs.
State of Maharashtra, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 299, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
Court held that a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the
enquiry conducted after issue of charge-sheet. The preliminary
enquiry is only to find out whether disciplinary enquiry should
be initiated against the delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held
under the Rules, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance
and, whether preliminary enquiry was held strictly in
accordance with law or by observing principles of natural
justice, remains of no consequence.
13. Notwithstanding the settled legal position, as
discussed hereinabove, having gone through the Memo of
charges as well as enquiry report, this Court finds that it
contains reiteration of the preliminary enquiry held time to time
by the Sergeant Major pursuant to the direction of the
Superintendent of Police, Araria. It is trite that the evidence
recorded in preliminary enquiry cannot be used as regular
enquiry, as the delinquent is not associated with it and
opportunity to cross-examine the person examined in such
enquiry is not given, using such evidence would obviously be
violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play.
14. Coming to the issue regarding jurisdiction of the
Superintendent of Police to issue Memo of charge and
conducting disciplinary proceeding against a delinquent holding
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and further making
recommendation for his dismissal had come up for
consideration before a Bench of this Court in the case of Uday
Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2017
(4) PLJR 195. Highlighting the definition of appointing
authority as well as disciplinary authority, as prescribed under
Rules 2(f) and 2(j) read with Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 2005,
the learned coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that a
careful reading of the aforenoted provisions leaves no room for
confusion that it is 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.
15. Thus in case of Sub-inspector of Police, it is the
Inspector General of Police / Deputy Inspector General of
Police, who would be the appointing authority as well as
disciplinary authority. It would be appropriate to encapsulate
para. 31 of the judgment of Uday Pratap Singh (supra) to
clarify the position.
"31. In so far as the case in hand
is concerned it is the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Patna who has
initiated the proceeding against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
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."
16. The Court further reiterating the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Min. of
Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in AIR
2012 SC 2250 has observed that there cannot be a contest on the
legal proposition that a disciplinary proceeding can only be
initiated by an authority competent to do so. It is established
that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to
initiate the disciplinary proceedings.
17. In the case in hand, specific plea has been taken
by the petitioner with regard to the Superintendent of Police
having no jurisdiction to conduct a departmental proceeding, but
neither it has been responded in the counter affidavit nor any
order of authorization has been placed on record to the effect
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
that the Superintendent of Police has been authorized for such
purpose.
18. The identical issue has also been considered in the
case of Dharmendra Kumar (supra) wherein the Court has
observed that admittedly the Deputy Inspector General of Police
is the Disciplinary Authority of a Sub-Inspector of Police, hence
the initiation of the departmental proceeding by issuance of the
Memo of charge by a Sub-ordinate official is wholly illegal and
for this reason alone the entire proceeding is found fit to be set
aside.
19. Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 2005 prescribes the
procedure for imposing major penalties. Rule 17(3) thereof casts
an obligation on the Disciplinary Authority to draw a charge
against a delinquent Government servant or cause it to be drawn
up against the officer delinquent.
20. It is specifically ruled that the substance of
imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour has definite and
distinct article of charge. In support of each charge, the
statement of all relevant facts, including a list of such document
by which, and a list of such witnesses by whom, the articles of
charge is sustained.
21. Rule 17(4) thereof mandates the delivery of such
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
charge memo so drawn up either through the Disciplinary
Authority or through an officer duly authorized. The obligation
cast on the Disciplinary Authority has further mandated him to
satisfy himself whether the explanation so forwarded by a
delinquent on the proposed charge, requires an enquiry by the
Enquiry Officer or requires a closure.
22. In case of Shankar Dayal Vs. State of Bihar &
Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 7207 of 2016) while reiterating the aforesaid
proposition of law had held that this power is exclusively vested
in the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 17(4) cannot be
delegated. The Court found that this mandatory obligation cast
on Disciplinary Authority has been flouted as confirmed from
the letter issued by the Enquiry Officer directing the petitioner
to file his reply on the charges before him.
23. In the case in hand, this Court finds that Rule
17(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005 has been given a complete go-
bye.
24. Now coming to the enquiry report, though this
Court finds that the witnesses were examined to prove the
charges levelled against the petitioner, but except the reiteration
of the consecutive preliminary enquiry report and the direction
given by the Superintendent of Police time to time, apart from
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
the deposition of the witnesses, there is no discussion as to why
the explanation of the petitioner is not acceptable to the enquiry
officer. The enquiry report merely reiterates the preliminary
enquiry reports as well as witnesses, who were examined even
during the preliminary enquiry. It surprisingly runs in eighteen
(18) pages, but the opinion of the enquiry officer is only in two
lines, which also based upon the preliminary enquiry holding
that the charges levelled against the petitioner stands proved.
25. Another infirmity has been committed by the
Superintendent of Police while asking the explanation from the
petitioner after receipt of the enquiry report and on being found
it unsatisfactory recommended for harsh punishment of
dismissal. The Disciplinary Authority further committed serious
illegality while passing the impugned order of punishment of
dismissal dated 08.12.2020 based on the recommendation of the
Superintendent of Police, Araria. From perusal thereof, it clearly
smacks of total non-application of independent mind by the
Disciplinary Authority.
26. The importance of giving reasons has been
emphasized and painstakingly explained by the Apex Court in
the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Masood Ahmed
Khan, reported in, (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein the Court, inter
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
alia, held that a quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions, inasmuch, as recording of reasons
also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary
exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative
power. It is the reasons, which facilitate the process of judicial
review by the superior Court.
27. This Court is also tempted to encapsulate the
relevant paragraph of the Division Bench Judgment of this
Court rendered in the case of Kems Services Private Limited
Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2014 (1) PLJR 622.
"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,
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
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."
28. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and
the position obtaining in law, the entire disciplinary
proceeding leading to issuance of the impugned order of
dismissal is held to be illegal, dehors the statutory procedure.
Accordingly, the entire disciplinary proceeding, right from
inception of Memo of Charge as well as order of punishment
dated 08.12.2020, as also the Appellate order dated 02.03.2021
and the order passed in Memorial appeal dated 23.06.2022, are
hereby quashed.
29. Now the question which would arise before this
Court as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to back
wages, especially when this Court has set aside the impugned
Patna High Court CWJC No.13380 of 2022 dt.18-03-2025
orders after holding it bad and illegal. Suffice it to observe that
in cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with
continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. The
aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue
of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take
into consideration the length of service of the employee, the
nature of misconduct, if any found proved against the employee,
the financial condition of the employer and similar other facts
[Vide: Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324].
30. Having regard to the facts that the respondents
have completely failed to justify their action in inflicting the
punishment and they have acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or principles of natural justice, this
Court further directs the respondents to pay the back wages to
the petitioner along with consequential benefits.
32. The writ petition stands allowed with the
aforenoted direction.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.03.2025
Transmission Date NA
