Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 20 March, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12321 of 2021
======================================================
Manoj Kumar Ram S/o- Late Mahanth Ram Resident of Village- Harpur, P.S.-
Raghunathpur, District- Siwan (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police (Budget, Appeal and Welfare), Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Inspector General of Police Muzaffarpur Zone, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Saran Range, Saran, Chapra.
7. The Superintendent of Police Saran, Chapra.
8. The Superintendent of Police District- Gopalganj.
9. The Enquiry Officer-cum- Deputy Superintendent of Police HQ, Saran,
(Chapra).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Adv.
Mr. Mritunjay Harsh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, GP 5
Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to GA 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV J U D G M E NT
Date : 20-03-2025
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, learned Advocate for
the State at length.
2. The petitioner has invoked the prerogative writ
jurisdiction of this Court, seeking quashing of Memo No. 3340
dated 17.11.2018 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Saran Range, Chapra (respondent no. 6), whereby the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
2/25
petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal
from the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The consequential
orders, as contained in Memo No. 4989 dated 24.11.2018 as
well as Memo No. 2488 dated 29.11.2018, are also put to
challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner is further
aggrieved with the order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the
respondent no. 3, whereby the appeal preferred against the
order of dismissal also came to be rejected vide order dated
16.02.2021
along with the consequential orders issued under
Memo No. 1498 dated 13.03.2021 and Memo No. 595 dated
23.03.2021.
3. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the
present lis as culled out from the materials available on record,
in brief, are as follows:
(i) The petitioner was duly appointed as a Sub
Inspector of Police on 18.02.2009. While the petitioner was
posted in Jalalpur Police Station within the district of Saran, he
was handed over an investigation in connection with Jalalpur
P.S. Case No. 112 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The afore noted
case was instituted against the Headmaster of the Government
School along with other persons. In the meanwhile, the husband
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
of the accused (Rajani Dubey) made a written complaint on
18.11.2014 before the Superintendent of Police,Vigilance
Bureau, Patna to the effect regarding demand of Rs.30,000/- by
the SHO of Jalalpur P.S. in lieu of sending the case diary to the
court, where bail application of his wife was pending.
(ii) On the basis of the said complaint, verification was
made on 19.11.2014 and subsequent thereto, a trap team was
constituted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna. A raid
was conducted on 21.11.2014 and the petitioner was
apprehended while accepting bribe of Rs.20,000/- leading to
institution of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 90 of 2014 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 7/13 (2) read with
section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Consequent to the institution of the FIR, the petitioner was
placed under suspension and Prapatra-Ka was framed under
Memo No. 27 dated 03.01.2015.
(iii) The petitioner on being released from the judicial
custody on 16.01.2015 filed a show cause on 09.03.2015
requesting therein to allow him to cross examine all the
witnesses, who shall depose in the departmental enquiry. The
petitioner also filed his show cause/defence statement before the
Conducting Officer on 24.09.2018; a demand was made for
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
necessary document with regard to the charges alleged against
him. On 19.12.2017 under Memo No. 5793 issued by the
Superintendent of Police, the Presenting Officer was appointed.
On enquiry, all the charges levelled against the petitioner stand
proved and accordingly, after completion of the enquiry, the
Conducting Officer has submitted its enquiry report to the
Superintendent of Police vide Memo No. 578 dated 27.09.2018.
Upon submission of the enquiry report, a show cause notice was
duly served upon the petitioner against his proposed dismissal
from service. In response thereto, the petitioner filed his
exhaustive reply in his defence reiterating the grounds which
have been taken during enquiry. Finally, the impugned order of
dismissal came to be passed under Memo No. 3340 dated
17.11.2018, which order has been communicated to the
petitioner by passing a consequential order under Memo No.
4989 dated 24.11.2018/Memo No. 2488 dated 29.11.2018
respectively.
(iv) It would also be relevant to point out that during
the departmental proceeding, the petitioner had also preferred
CWJC No. 15117 of 2018 for keeping the departmental enquiry
in hold till the disposal of the Vigilance Case. However, on
account of the order of dismissal having been passed in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
interregnum period, the writ application has become
infructuous.
(v) Being aggrieved with the order of dismissal, the
petitioner also preferred CWJC No. 9534 of 2019 which came
to be disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2020 with a direction to
the respondent to dispose of the statutory appeal, which was
found pending before the appellate authority. Pursuant to the
direction of this Court, the appeal was taken up and finally came
to be rejected vide order dated 16.02.2021. Upon the order
being passed by the appellate authority, the consequential orders
of rejection of appeal also communicated through Memo No.
1498 dated 13.03.2021 and Memo No. 595 dated 23.03.2021,
respectively.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing
the impugned order of dismissal and its affirmance by the
appellate authority has contended that the Superintendent of
Police was neither the disciplinary authority nor the appointing
authority of the petitioner, who was holding the post of Sub
Inspector, and, as such, the issuance of memo of charge by the
Superintendent of Police, Saran and the recommendation for
dismissal is wholly without jurisdiction, apart from there is non
compliance of Rules 16, 17 (2) and 18 of the Bihar Government
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as the 'CCA Rules, 2005'). Adverting to
the facts of the case, it is further contended that admittedly the
date on which the memo of charge was issued, the petitioner
was under judicial custody; from bare perusal of memo of
charge which was issued on 03.01.2015 it would be evident that
no Presenting Officer was appointed to conduct the case of the
Department. For the first time, the Presenting Officer was
appointed on 19.12.2017, much belatedly after examination of
so many witnesses. Non appointment of the Presenting Officer
was completely in the teeth of Rule 17(5)(c) of the CCA Rules,
2005 as also the consequential letter issued at the level of the
Inspector General of Police under Memo no. 235 dated
20.12.2017 directing all the Superintendents of Police to follow
the statutory prescriptions. Referring to the aforesaid facts,
learned Advocate thus contended that the departmental
proceeding stands vitiated as it is the Conducting Officer who
has acted as a Presenting Officer. It is the specific contention of
the petitioner on affidavit that he was not provided an
appropriate opportunity of examining the witnesses during the
course of enquiry, despite request having been made time to
time on his part; hence submission has been made that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
impugned order of dismissal is violative of the rule of principles
of natural justice.
5. Referring to various paragraphs, learned Advocate
for the petitioner contended that the delinquent has not been
given any notice during the course of departmental enquiry
when prosecution witnesses were to be examined by the enquiry
officer, which also supports the submission, afore noted.
6. The next limb of argument of the learned Advocate
for the petitioner is confined to the legality of the impugned
order as it is said to have been passed without considering the
defence adduced by the petitioner during departmental enquiry
along with the affidavit provided in support thereof by the
independent witness of the seizure list of trap case. The
important facts which was overlooked by the enquiry officer as
well as the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority is
writ large as the complaint was only made against Manish
Kumar, the Officer Incharge of the Jalalpur P.S. and not against
the petitioner with respect to demand of bribe from the
complainant. The entire trap case was false and actuated with
malice and to substantiate such submission, a lengthy argument
referring to the averments made in the writ petition has also
been made. Adding with the aforesaid submission it has also
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
been pointed out that the person who conducted the
investigation in the Vigilance Case was itself a tainted officer,
marked with black mark in a disciplinary proceeding and thus
not trustworthy liable officer to conduct such enquiry. Grounds
taken by the petitioner have neither been considered by the
disciplinary officer nor the appellate authority, there is no
discussion as to why the defence statement of the petitioner and
the grounds raised in support of such defence did nto find
favour.
7. To buttress all the submissions afore noted, Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Giri, learned Advocate for the petitioner placed
reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the
case of Kumayu Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Girija
Shankar [(2001) 1 SCC 182], wherein the Court emphasized
that the object of doctrine of natural justice is not to secure
justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Hon'ble Court
observed that the 60 pages report submitted by the Conducting
Officer where charges against the delinquent stand proved and
the lengthy order passed by the disciplinary authority did not
find enough to sustain the order of dismissal when the enquiry
report was found without any basis and also who is the person,
who has produced the same in absence of any Presenting Officer
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
and the notice fixing the date of hearing.
8. Reliance has also been placed on a decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
U.P. & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha [(2010) (2) SCC 772] to
remind this Court with the settled proposition that the Enquiry
Officer acting in quasi judicial authority, is in the position of an
independent adjudicator and thus he is not supposed to be a
representative of Department / disciplinary authority/
Government. Enquiry Officer should not act as a prosecutor as
well as a judge.
9. Referring to the decision of the learned Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Upendra Pandit vs. State of
Bihar & Ors. [2023(4) PLJR 568], learned Advocate for the
petitioner has contended that non appointment of Presenting
Officer is a clear and serious lapse of the provisions of Rule 17
of the CCA Rules, 2005 which may lead to setting aside the
order of dismissal as well as the order rejecting the appeal.
Reliance has also been placed on a judgment rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of T. Subramanian vs State of Tamil
Nadu [AIR 2006 SC 836] and Further in the case of B. Jayaraj
vs State of Andhra Pradesh [(2014) 13 SCC 55] on the point
that in absence of proof of payment of illegal gratification, mere
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused did not
establish the commission of offence. It is the contention of the
petitioner that though the judgments have been rendered in a
criminal appeal but the position is settled in law that the demand
of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to establish the said
offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute
an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the
accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a
bribe. It is very surprising that the person against whom
complaint of demand of bribe was made, he was also put to
departmental proceeding but inflicted only with the punishment
of one black mark; so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has
been visited with the extreme punishment of dismissal.
10. While summing up the submission, learned
Advocate for the petitioner referred to a Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Md. GiaaulHak vs. State of Bihar
[2024(1) BLJ 94] to the effect that if any action, which ought to
be done by the Presenting Officer has been done by enquiry
officer himself and the enquiry proceeding resulted into
punishment, is not sustainable and fit to be quashed.
11. Dispelling the contentions made on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
petitioner, Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, representing the State has
vehemently argued that the initiation of the disciplinary
proceeding with the memo of charge was actuated pursuant to
the direction of the Director General of Police to the
Superintendent of Police, Saran and thus the plea of the
petitioner that the disciplinary proceeding and the issuance of
memo of charge is wholly without jurisdiction and in no
circumstances, stands substantiated. During the departmental
proceeding, ample opportunity had been offered to the
petitioner, who submitted his detailed exhaustive reply/defence
statement as well as the additional explanation along with other
supporting documentary evidence, like affidavit of the
witnesses, which are duly considered by the Conducting Officer
and after proper consideration of the materials and evidences
available on record, the charges against the petitioner was found
proved.
12. It is fairly contended that though the Presenting
Officer was duly appointed on 19.12.2017, but subsequent
thereto the witnesses were examined and the petitioner was duly
informed about the scheduled date in the proceeding, but he
failed to ensure his presence and cross examine the witnesses.
To fortify the aforesaid contention, the record in relation to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
departmental proceeding No. 2 of 2015 has been produced
before this Court. Drawing the attention of this Court to the
memo of charge it is contended that the petitioner has been
provided the list of witnesses and the documents based upon
which the charges proposed to be proved. The enquiry report
clearly suggests that the deposition of the member of the trap
team as well as others witnesses were recorded in the
disciplinary proceeding, and they have clearly supported the
charge of accepting bribe of Rs. 20,000/- by the petitioner. The
Conducting Officer also considered the written statement of the
petitioner. List of documents as disclosed in the memo of charge
was duly supplied upon the delinquent; moreover the enquiry
report suggests that the charges stand proved after considering
all the materials available on record. Based upon the enquiry
report, show cause notice was duly served upon the petitioner
and on receipt of the reply to the show cause, the Superintendent
of Police examined the same and made recommendation to the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra to
inflict punishment of dismissal. Disciplinary authority, on being
satisfied with the enquiry report, analysed the entire matters
including show cause reply of the petitioner and inflicted
punishment of dismissal, which is proportionate to the charges.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
13. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also came
to be rejected on being found no merit. Heavy reliance has been
placed on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Bhupendra Singh [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1908]. Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, learned Government
Pleader, after taking this Court through the aforesaid decision
has reminded the settled principle of law that the departmental
authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole
judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which
their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that
evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed
before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article
226 of the Constitution. The adequacy or sufficiency of
evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn
from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Tribunal or the disciplinary authority. It has also been urged
before this Court, that it is well settled that if the disciplinary
authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer
and proceeds to impose punishment on the basis thereof, no
elaborate reasons are required, as explained by three Judges
Bench of the Apex Court. [vide: Boloram Bordoloi v Lakhimi
Gaolia Bank, (2021) 3 SCC 806].
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
14. This Court has given anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Advocates for
the respective parties and also perused the materials available on
record, including the record in relation to departmental
proceeding produced before this Court.
15. Before coming to the facts of the case it would be
apposite to discuss the legal position which would govern the
point in issue raised before this Court. A charge of corruption is
rather a serious charge and if found in a disciplinary
proceeding, the opinion expressed by the disciplinary
authority/presenting officer cannot be interfered with on
misplaced sympathy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary, Minister of Defence & Ors. vs. Prabhash Chandra
Mirdha [AIR 2012 SC 2250] has ruled that a gravity of charge
is also a relevant factor. In the same line, the Court in the case
of Brajendra Singh Yambem vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2016)
9 SCC 20] has observed that the gravity of charge is a relevant
factor in trap cases in technical flow flop would not be
sufficient to set aside the order passed on such misconduct. The
Supreme Court did not grant indulgence after noticing the fact
of procedural lapses which was found to be only irregular. It is
trite that an extreme charge of such nature warrants an extreme
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
action and there cannot be any dispute on the principles but
nonetheless any action initiated by the State in this direction
should be lawful by following the prescribed statutory
procedures. A Bench of this Court in the case of Uday Pratap
Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2017(4) PLJR 195] while
making the afore noted observation has said that it is not on
mere whims and fancies that any opinion should be formed by
the disciplinary authority merely on the seriousness of charge
rather before any final opinion is expressed on the charge, the
Disciplinary Authority is under a lawful obligation to follow the
procedure prescribed under the service rules.
16. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution in
dealing with the departmental enquiries has been considered in
innumerable decisions by the highest court of the land. The
scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the
decision making process and not the decision. Caution has been
made that the court would not go into the correctness of the
choice made by the administrator open to him and the court
should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator
[vide: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v.
Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223: (1947) 2 All ER 680
(CA)]. In the case of Union of India & Ors. P Gunasekaran
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
[(2015) 2 SCC 610], the Apex Court painstakingly summarized
the scope of interference while exercising power under Article
226 and 227. It would be worth benefiting to encapsulate the
relevant paragraph:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is
painfully disturbing to note that the High
Court has acted as an appellate authority in
the disciplinary proceedings,
reappreciating even the evidence before the
enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I
was accepted by the disciplinary authority
and was also endorsed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary
proceedings, the High Court is not and
cannot act as a second court of first appeal.
The High Court, in exercise of its powers
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
of India, shall not venture into
reappreciation of the evidence. The High
Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent
authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of
natural justice in conducting the
proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves
from reaching a fair conclusion by some
considerations extraneous to the evidence
and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves
to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous
considerations;
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is
so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could ever have arrived
at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously failed to admit the admissible
and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence
which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no
evidence."
17. As regards the power of the High Court to
reappraise the facts, it cannot be said that the same is completely
impermissible under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
However, there must be a level of infirmity greater than
ordinary in a tribunal's order, which is facing judicial scrutiny
before the High Court, to justify interference as has been held
by the Apex Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited vs. A S
Raghavendra, [(2024) 6 SCC 418]. Reiterating the settled legal
position right from the case of Andhra Pradesh v. S Sree Rama
Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723] as also in the case of State of Andhra
Pradesh v.Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557] and State
Bank of India v. S K Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364]. The Apex
Court in the case of Bhupendra Singh (supra) has also observed
that in a case where a fair opportunity was given to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
delinquent to present his version on account of minor
deficiencies in the process, if the same has not caused prejudice
to the respondents to the extent warranting judicial interdiction
and the charges were proved based upon legal evidence, the
order of dismissal should not interfere normally.
18. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, it is the
admitted position that the complaint was only confined to the
allegation of demand of bribe by Manish Kumar, the Officer In
Charge of Jalalpur Police Station which led to verification and
apprehension of the petitioner while allegedly accepting bribe of
Rs. 20,000/- resulting into institution of Jalalpur P.S. Case No.
112 of 2014. It is also the admitted position that the memo of
charge was issued on 03.01.2015 while the petitioner was under
judicial custody. The petitioner on being released, while denying
the allegation filed representations contained in Annexure-4
series with a request for cross examination of the witnesses,
whose names were disclosed in the list of witnesses by whom
the charges were proposed to be proved. The petitioner also
asked for supply of necessary relevant papers in order to offer a
proper and exhaustive written statement. The presenting Officer
in the disciplinary proceeding was appointed on 18.12.2017,
however, in the meantime, two of the witnesses namely
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
Amarnath Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Maharaja
Kanisk Kumar, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance
Investigation Bureau were examined by the Conducting Officer.
19. Time without number the Court has cautioned with
the very object of principles of natural justice which mandates
that the employees should be treated fairly in any proceeding
which may culminate in punishment being imposed on them. In
the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) the Court while
emphasizing the significance of role and status of the Enquiry
Officer has observed that the departmental enquiry conducted
against the government servant cannot be treated as a casual
exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted
with a closed mind. The enquiry officer has to be wholly
unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed
to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to
be done. The Hon'ble Court has also emphasized the rulings
rendered in the case of Shaughnessy v. United States, [345 US
206 (1953) (Jackson J)], a judge of the United States Supreme
Court has said "procedural fairness and regularity are of the
indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can be
endured if they are fairly and impartially applied."
20. It would be worth benefiting to encapsulate
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
paragraph-28 of the decision rendered in the case of Saroj
Kumar Sinha (supra):
"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-
judicial authority is in the position of an
independent adjudicator. He is not
supposed to be a representative of the
department / disciplinary authority /
Government. His function is to examine the
evidence presented by the Department,
even in the absence of the delinquent
official to see as to whether the unrebutted
evidence is sufficient to hold that the
charges are proved. In the present case the
aforesaid procedure has not been observed.
Since no oral evidence has been examined
the documents have not been proved, and
could not have been taken into
consideration to conclude that the charges
have been proved against the
respondents."
21. It is also not in dispute that the Presenting Officer
was not at all appointed rather it is a case where the Presenting
Officer was appointed but belatedly. Even in such
circumstances, the Court may observe that the respondent
authorities transgressed the necessary requirement of the
prescription and the statutory rule as incorporated under Rule
17(5)(c) of the CCA Rules, 2005. The significance of the
appointment of the Presenting Officer has also been admitted by
the respondent which led to issuance of memo No. 235 dated
20.12.2017 as contained in Anneuxre-7. The afore noted memo
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
clearly prescribed the role of the Presenting Officer which
would worth relevant for the case in hand, the typed copy of
which is incorporated in this order, hereinafter:
ÞKkikad 235@344106@,y- 1
iqfyl egkfuns"kd dk dk;kZy;] fcgkj iVukA
iVuk] fnukad 20@12@20
lsok esa]
lHkh ojh; iqfyl v/kh{kd] fcgkjA
lHkh iqfyl v/kh{kd ¼jsyos lfgr½ fcgkjA
lHkh lekns'Vk] fcgkj lSU; iqfylA
fo'k;%&vuq"kklfud tk¡p ¼foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh½ esa izLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh dh
fu;qfDr ,oa dk;Z fu'iknu ds laca/k esAa
mijksDr fo'k; ds lanHkZ esa dguk gS fd iqfyl inkf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa dfeZ;ksa ds
fo:) pyk, tk jgs foHkkxh; tk¡p ¼foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh½ esa izLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh dh
izfrfu;qfDr ugha jgus ds dkj.k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk fof/k iwoZd vuq"kklfud
tk¡p ugha gksus ds dkj.k vipkjh dks ykHk vFkok iqu% vuq"kklfud tk¡p gsrq funsZf"kr fd;k
tk jgk gSA------------- fcgkj ljdkjh lsod oxhZdj.k fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 17 ¼5½ ¼x½ ds vuqlkj
tk¡p izkf/kdkj fu;qDr djus dh n"kk esa vuq"kklfud izkf/kdkj dks vkjksiksa ds leFkZu esa ekeyk
dks izLrqr djus ds fy, fdlh ljdkjh lsod dks vkns"k }kjk izLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh fu;qDr
djuk gSA izLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr vuq"kklfud izkf/kdkj }kjk fd;k tkrk gSA
foHkkxh; tk¡p esa izLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh ds fuEu dk;Z gSa%&
● izkIr vkjksi&i= ¼izi=&d½] vfHk;ksx dh fo'k; oLrq] vfHkys[kh; lk{; ,oa vipkjh
ds vfHkdFku dk v/;;u djukA
● vipkjh ds fo:) vfHkys[kh; lk{;ksa dks mi;qDr :i ls tk¡p izkf/kdkj ds le{k
miLFkkfir djukA
● vuq"kklfud izkf/kdkj dh vksj ls lkf{k;ksa dk c;ku tk¡p izkf/kdkj ds le{k djkukA
● vipkjh }kjk cpko esa izLrqr lkf{k;ksa ls izfrijh{kk djukA
● vipkjh }kjk izfrokn esa izLrqr fd, x, vfHkys[kh; lk{;ksa dk v/;;u dj mldh
=qfV;ksa@vlaxfr;ksa dks izLrqr djukA
● tk¡p izfØ;k lekIr gksus ij vuq"kklfud izkf/kdkj dh vksj ls ekSf[kd i{k dks tk¡p
izkf/kdkj ds le{k izLrqr djukA
● vuq"kklfud izkf/kdkj dh vksj ls fyf[kr :i esa tk¡p izkf/kdkj ds le{k foHkkxh;
i{k dks izLrqr djukA
● izLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh dk dk;Z tk¡p izkf/kdkj ugha dj ldrk gSA ,slk djus ij
foHkkxh; tk¡p dh dkjZokbZ voS/k gksrh gSA
● izLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh dh vuqifLFkfr esa dh xbZ tk¡p dh djZokbZ fujLr fd;k
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
tkrk gSA
funsZ"k fn;k tkrk gS fd iqfyl inkf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa iqfyldfeZ;ksa ds fo:) izkjEHk dh
xbZ foHkkxh; tk¡p izfØ;k esa loZizFke izLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr djsa vkSj
muls mij vafdr dk;ksZa dk fu'iknu djk,a ftlls izfØ;kRed =qfV;ksa ls cpk tk
ldsA
iqfyl egkfujh{kd ¼ctV] vihy ,oa dY;k.k½
fcgkj] iVuk
izfrfyfi%&lHkh iqfyl egkfujh{kd@lHkh iqfyl mi&egkfujh{kd] fcgkj dks lwpukFkZ
,oa vko";d fØ;kFkZ gsrq izsf'krA
iqfyl egkfujh{kd ¼ctV] vihy ,oa dY;k.k½
fcgkj] iVukß
22. Having taken note of the duty of the Presenting
Officer, now coming to the enquiry report submitted by the
Conducting Officer, copy of which is marked as Anneuxre-9 to
the writ petition; this Court finds that save and except a
sentence "to help in conducting the proceeding the Presenting
Officer was also deputed", there is nothing as to what role he
had played. The report of the Conducting Officer narrated the
statement of the witnesses produced on behalf of the
Department as well as defence written statement of the
petitioner, but there is no deliberation and discussion as to why
the defence of the petitioner is not worth accepting. Mere
reiteration of the statement of the witnesses and the written
defence statement could not be suffice to absolve the Enquiry
Officer from discharging his significant duty, who has been
bound to act as an independent quasi judicial authority.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
23. It is trite that justice is not to be done but is
manifestly seen to be done. At an enquiry which may lead to
extreme punishment of dismissal, extreme caution is required;
and if in case the delinquent could not get the benefit of cross
examination of witnesses on account of his absence, if found to
be his absence on justifiable ground, in such circumstances, the
Enquiry Officer should be indulgent to provide opportunity for
cross examination on the next date asked for by the delinquent.
There is no dispute that the lengthy enquiry report without
assigning any reason to uphold the charges stand proved is
vulnerable and fit to be interfered. Moreover, the reasons have
been held to be the heart and soul of an order giving the insight
to the mind of the maker of the order and that he considered all
relevant aspects and discarded irrelevant aspect. In the case of
M/S Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed
Khan & Ors [(2010) 9 SCC 496] the Hon'ble Court has
summarized the significance of recording of reasons by holding
that a quasi judicial authority must record reasons in support of
its conclusion as it operates a valid restraint on any possible
arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even
administrative power.
24. This Court is not oblivious of the settled principle
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
that in a disciplinary proceeding the charges are proved on the
basis of preponderance of probabilities whereas in a criminal
case the charges are to be proved beyond all its reasonable
doubts but in absence of proof of demand of illegal gratification,
mere recovery of the tainted currency notes from the
appellant/accused does not establish the commission of offence,
hence in the case, herein, it was incumbent upon the Department
to prove even on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities
that the petitioner voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to
be a bribe.
25. It would be also noteworthy, the SHO of Jalalpur,
namely, Manish Kumar against whom the complaint of demand
of bribe of Rs. 30,000/- was made, he had been left only with a
black mark, which is equivalent to warning.
26. On all these aforesaid counts and the discussions
made hereinabove based upon the settled legal propositions, this
Court finds substance in the writ petition. Accordingly, the
impugned order as contained in Memo No. 3340 dated
17.11.2018 as well as the appellate order dated 16.02.2021
along with all the consequential orders are hereby set aside.
27. The writ petition stands allowed.
28. On account of the impugned orders and the orders
Patna High Court CWJC No.12321 of 2021 dt.20-03-2025
issued in consequent thereto, having been set aside, now the
question would arise with respect to entitlement of back wages.
Suffice it to observe that in case of wrongful
dismissal/termination of service, reinstatement with continuity
of service and back wages is the normal rule, subject to the rider
that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating
authority or Court may take into consideration various materials
including the length of service, the financial conditions of the
employer, the nature of misconduct if found proved and similar
other factors [Vide; Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior
Adhyapak & Ors, (2013) 10 SCC 324]. To meet the interest of
justice, the respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the
petitioner with the continuity of service by extending half of the
salary for the period he remained outside from service.
29. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 18.02.2025
Uploading Date 24.03.2025
Transmission Date
