Patna High Court
Ajay Kumar Thakur vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 3907 of 2025
======================================================
Ajay Kumar Thakur Son of Late Devendra Nath Thakur, Resident of Village
Thakur Gangati, District - Godda, (Jharkhand), at present residing at Flat No.
75, Block No. 06, Arya Kumar Road, Rajendra Nagar, Dinkar Golamber, P.S.
Kadamkuan, Town and District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Divisional Commissioner cum Appellate Authority, Gandhi Maidan,
Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Patna.
4. The Additional Collector cum Departmental Enquiring Officer, Patna.
5. The Treasury Officer, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Akhilesh Dutta Verma
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (5)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-05-2025
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner
seeking the following reliefs:
"... ... ... For issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the order
dated 05.11.2024 passed in Service Appeal No
116 of 2015 passed by Appellate Authority
Respondent No 2 the Divisional Commissioner,
Patna vide (Annexure P/17) and also for
quashing of order dated 17.02.2014 passed by
Respondent No 3 Disciplinary Authority, District
Magistrate, Patna vide Memo No 642 (Annexure
10) whereby the petitioner has been terminated
from his service on the basis of finding of
departmental enquiry and for an appropriate
direction/order/command directing the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3907 of 2025 dt.09-05-2025
2/8
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his
service and also for all the consequential
benefits or for any other order or orders as may
deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2 Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed
as Assistant Accountant in the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies
Corporation Limited, Patna and joined his services on 29.07.1986
at Patna. Thereafter, he joined in September, 1996 as Treasury
Officer, Buxar on deputation. Subsequently, he was transferred to
Secretariat Treasury, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna in the month of
January, 2000. Finally, his cadre was absorbed in Collectorate
Cadre, Patna on 08.03.2006. During his posting at Patna
Collectorate Treasury, he was made a victim in the trap case
resulting in the institution of Vigilance PS Case No 27 of 2011 and
the petitioner was taken in custody on 06.05.2011. During his
judicial custody, he was put under suspension by order dated
02.06.2011
with effect from 06.05.2011. He was granted bail and
released from custody on 07.07.2011. He submitted his joining
before the Treasury Officer on 15.07.2011 which was accepted on
14.10.2011. His suspension was also revoked with effect from
15.07.2011. He was further suspended under Rule 9 of the Bihar
CCA Rules due to pendency of the vigilance case. Thereafter, he
was served with a departmental charge sheet dated 24.10.2011.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3907 of 2025 dt.09-05-2025
Departmental enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer who
submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The
Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 17.02.2014 (Annexure
P/10) passed the order of major punishment and the services of the
petitioner have been dismissed. Against the said order, Service
Appeal No 116 of 2015 was preferred by the petitioner which was
also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 12.06.2018.
Thereafter, the petitioner challenged both the orders by filing a
writ petition before this Court being CWJC No 5595 of 2019
which has been allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide
its order dated 09.07.2024 and the matter was remitted back to the
Appellate Authority with a direction to pass a reasoned and
speaking order within 90 days from the date of production of a
copy of the order of this Court.
3 Subsequently, the Appellate Authority passed the
impugned order (Annexure P/17 dated 05.11.2024) whereby the
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been affirmed.
Hence, this petition.
4 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that along with charge sheet dated 24.10.2011, neither list of
witnesses nor list of documents were provided to the petitioner.
During the course of enquiry also, the Enquiry Officer had not
Patna High Court CWJC No.3907 of 2025 dt.09-05-2025
recorded the statement of any of the witnesses and only, on the
basis of submission made by the Presenting Officer, arrived on the
conclusion that charges levelled against the petitioner were duly
proved. He further submits that on the basis of enquiry report,
second show cause was issued against the petitioner. In his reply,
the petitioner categorically mentioned the fact that no witnesses
were examined by the Enquiry Officer nor any documents were
provided to him and he further demanded the same but the same
has not been provided and without considering his reply of show
case, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punishment
which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that while
deciding the appeal, on both occasions, the Appellate Authority did
not consider these aspects and passed the orders mechanically.
Therefor, on these grounds, both the orders, i e, order of dismissal
as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure
P/17) are liable to set aside. Lastly, it is submitted that the
petitioner has already retired from the services, therefore, he is
also entitled to get all consequential benefits.
5 Reliance has been placed by the counsel on the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Satyendra
Singh -Versus- The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2024 SCC
Online SC 3325, Roop Singh Negi -Versus- Punjab National
Patna High Court CWJC No.3907 of 2025 dt.09-05-2025
Bank & Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 and the judgment passed by
this Court in LPA No 770 of 2024 (State of Bihar & Others
-Versus- Anil Kumar Sinha). Also reliance has been placed by the
counsel on the judgment passed by this Court in CWJC No 7776
of 2023 (Sanjay Kumar -Versus- The State of Bihar & Others).
6 The learned counsel for the State opposes the
argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused
the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as the
counter affidavit.
8 The first contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that in the charge memo, neither list of witness nor
list of documents were prepared and provided to the petitioner.
Perusal of the charge memo (Annexure P/5) annexed with the
petition shows that in the charge memo, neither list of witnesses
nor the list of documents were prepared and provided to the
petitioner. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in this regard is also not duly rebutted by the
respondent-State in its counter affidavit.
9 Perusal of the enquiry report (Annexure P/7) also
shows that the Enquiry Officer neither recorded the statement of
any witness nor relied on any of the documents of the Department
Patna High Court CWJC No.3907 of 2025 dt.09-05-2025
and passed the enquiry report only on the basis of submission
made by the Presenting Officer giving finding that the charges
levelled against the petitioner has been duly proved. The enquiry
report further shows that during the course of enquiry, some
documents were demanded by the petitioner which were not
provided to him. Perusal of the reply of the second show cause
submitted by the petitioner further shows that this fact has been
categorically stated by the petitioner in his show cause that he has
neither been provided any document relied upon by the
Department nor any statement of the witness which was recorded
by the Enquiry Officer. However, the Disciplinary Authority,
while passing the order impugned whereby the services of the
petitioner have been terminated, did not consider these aspects.
While deciding the appeal, the Appellate Authority also did not
consider it and passed the impugned order (Annexure P/17).
10 In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the Supreme
Court held that mere production of document is not enough. The
relevant part of the judgment rendered in the case of Roop Singh
Negi (supra) at paragraph 23 reads as under:
"23. Furthermore, the order of the
disciplinary authority as also the appellate
authority are not supported by any reason. As th
orders passed by them have severe civil
consequences, appropriate reasons should have
been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied
Patna High Court CWJC No.3907 of 2025 dt.09-05-2025
upon the confession made by the appellant,
there was no reason as to why the order of
discharge passed by the criminal court on the
basis of selfsame evidence should not have been
been taken into consideration. The materials
brought on record pointing out the guilt are
required to be proved. A decision must be
arrived at on some evidence, which is legally
admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act
may not be applicable in a departmental
proceeding but the principles of natural justice
are. As the report of the enquiry officer was
based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and
conjectures, the same could not have been
sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry
officer apparently were not supported by any
evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however,
high may be, can under no circumstances be
held to be a substitute for legal proof."
11 In the case of Satyendra Singh, the Supreme Court
observed and held in paragraph 17 as follows:
"17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry,
it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the
witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested
the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone
of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded
by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi
and Nirmala J Jhala, we are of the firm view
that the inquiry proceedings conducted against
the appellant pertaining to charges punishable
with major penalty, were totally vitiated and
non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence
whatsoever was recorded by the department in
support of the charges."
12 In the light of above observation made by the
Supreme Court, on examination of the facts of the case, it is quite
clear that the Enquiry Officer, without recording the statement of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3907 of 2025 dt.09-05-2025
any witness and without production of any document by the
Department, only on the basis of submission made by the
Presenting Officer, arrived on the conclusion that the charges
levelled against the petitioner are duly proved. The above finding
recorded by the Enquiry Officer is not in accordance with law.
However, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate
Authority also did not consider this aspect while passing the order
of punishment and deciding the appeal.
13 Therefore, in the light of above observations made by
the Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure P/10) and
the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure P/13) are
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, both the orders are quashed
and set aside.
14 The writ petition is allowed.
15 Since the petitioner has already retired from the
services, therefore, he is entitled to get entire consequential
benefits.
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.05.2025
Transmission Date NA
