Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Shardendu Bhushan on 14 May, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.186 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12763 of 2018
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Shardendu Bhushan Son of Sri Shivji Singh Resident of House No.- E/3
Phase- II, Ashiana Nagar, P.S.- Rajiv nagar, District - Patna- 800001,
Suspended at Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, AC to SC 26
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Ambastha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY)
Date : 14-05-2025
Re: I.A. no. 2 of 2025
The instant application has been filed on behalf of the
State of Bihar/Appellant for condoning the delay of 99 days in
filing of the instant appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the contents of the petition, the Court is satisfied
that the appellant has made out a case for condonation of delay.
The delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.186 of 2025 dt.14-05-2025
2/8
3. I.A. no. 2 of 2025 stands allowed.
Re:L.P.A. no. 186 of 2025
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant
against the judgment dated 7.10.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge whereby while allowing CWJC no. 12763 of 2018,
he was pleased to set aside the order contained in notification
no. 8643(S) Patna, dated 20.11.2018 of the Deputy Secretary
(Vigilance), Road Construction Department, Bihar whereby the
writ petitioner/respondent was dismissed from service and also
quashed the order contained in notification no. 1065(S) dated
29.1.2019
issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary
(Vigilance), Road Construction Department, Bihar whereby the
review preferred by the respondent was rejected.
6. The relevant facts, in brief, are that on 30.6.2015 while
posted as an Assistant Engineer, Road Sub-Division Hilsa
Nalanda, the respondent was made accused in an FIR being
Special Vigilance Unit P.S. Case no. 1/2015 registered under the
Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation of possessing
assets disproportionate to his known source of income.
7. The respondent was placed under suspension on
3.8.2015, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him
Patna High Court L.P.A No.186 of 2025 dt.14-05-2025
vide resolution dated 9.10.2015 and he was served with a charge
sheet with the charge mentioned in Prapatra 'Ka'. The charge
against respondent was that on inquiry and verification, the
respondent had been found to be in possession of assets
disproportionate by Rs. 2,77,79,000/- to his known source of
income. As such it was stated that the same showed the
respondent to be guilty of misconduct and misdemeanor.
8. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the
departmental proceeding having been initiated vide resolution
dated 9.10.2015, the matter was referred by the Disciplinary
Authority to the Inquiry Officer who in his order dated
5.11.2015 took note of the fact that the relevant documents ie (a)
show cause notice given to the officer concerned, (b) reply to
the show cause notice filed by the officer, (c) the departmental
opinion given on the reply to the show cause notice filed by the
officer, were not available in the records and as such the
department was directed to provide the same. Another reminder
was given for the aforesaid documents by the Inquiry Officer by
his order dated 23.11.2015 and the same not having been made
available, on 4.12.2015 the records were returned to the
Disciplinary Authority to send the same after completing the
required documents in the concerned file.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.186 of 2025 dt.14-05-2025
9. It further transpires that enclosing the copy of the
chargesheet in Prapatra 'Ka', a show cause notice was issued to
the respondent on 6.1.2016 asking him to file a reply to the
same. On a reply having been filed by the respondent, the
inquiry proceeded and the Departmental Inquiry Commissioner
in his report dated 3.8.2017 found the charge against the
respondent to have been proved. Enclosing a copy of the
inquiry report, a second show cause notice was issued to the
respondent to which he filled his reply on 12.12.2017. Having
perused the same, the respondent came out with the order of
punishment dated 20.11.2018 dismissing the respondent from
service. The review filed by the respondent was also rejected by
order dated 23.1.2019.
10. On the orders of punishment having been challenged
by the respondent in the writ application the learned Single
Judge taking note of the procedure as laid down in Sub Rules 3,
4 and 5 of Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 ('CCA Rules'
in short) not having been followed, by his judgment dated
7.10.2024 proceeded to set aside both the order of punishment
dated 20.11.2018 as also order dated 29.1.2019 rejecting the
review filed by the respondent. It is against this judgment dated
Patna High Court L.P.A No.186 of 2025 dt.14-05-2025
7.10.2024 allowing the writ application that the instant appeal
has been preferred by the State of Bihar/appellant.
11. It is submitted learned counsel appearing for the
appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to consider Rule
17 in the right perspective as finding on the written statement of
defence is not required before the matter being referred to the
Inquiring Authority. It was further submitted that the procedure
laid down under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules having been fully
complied with, the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the
writ application.
12. In response, it is submitted by learned counsel
appearing for the respondent that there was clear procedural
irregularity in so far as the disciplinary authority had not
followed the procedure laid down under Rule 17 of the CCA
Rules. There is no illegality in the order of the learned Single
Judge and the instant appeal be dismissed.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
14. Bereft of unnecessary details, it may be stated here
that on the records having been returned by the Inquiry officer
to the Disciplinary Authority, enclosing copy of the chargesheet
in Prapatra 'Ka' a show cause notice was issued to the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.186 of 2025 dt.14-05-2025
respondent on 6.1.2016 asking him to file his reply within a
period of 7 days. The respondent filed his detailed reply, where
after the matter was referred to the Departmental Inquiry
Commissioner for conducting any inquiry.
15. Rule 17 of the CCA Rules provides the procedure for
imposing major penalties. Rule 17(4) provides that the
disciplinary authority shall provide to the Government servant a
copy of the article of charge, statement of imputations of
misconduct or misbehavour and the list of documents and
witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be
sustained. Thereafter the Government servant shall be required
to submit a written statement of his defence. Rule 17(5) further
provides that on receipt of the written statement of defence the
disciplinary authority may himself inquire into such articles of
charge which are not admitted by the Government servant or he
may appoint an inquiry authority under Rule 17(2) for the
purpose. Thus it may be stated here that as per Rule 17(4) and
(5) of the CCA Rules, on receipt of the written statement of
defence from the Government servant (respondent herein), the
disciplinary authority may either himself inquire into such
articles of charge or appoint any inquiry authority for the said
purpose.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.186 of 2025 dt.14-05-2025
16. The learned Single Judge came to the finding that
having obtained the written statement of defence from the
respondent on the chargesheet contained in Prapatra 'Ka', the
Disciplinary Authority failed to apply its independent mind
whether to proceed to inquire into the articles of charges himself
or to appoint any inquiry authority for the said purpose.
17. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge
proceeded to set aside the order of punishment as also the order
rejecting the review and allowed the writ application giving
liberty to the department to take action afresh if the cause of
action still survives, with the further direction that in case
proceeding is initiated to conclude the same within a period of 6
months.
18. This Court finds no illegality in the order of the
learned Single Judge nor any merit in the appeal preferred by
the appellant-State of Bihar.
19. The appeal is dismissed upholding the order of the
learned Single Judge. However, with the modification that the
order of punishment dated 20.11.2018 and the review preferred
by the respondent which was rejected vide order dated
29.1.2019, both having been set aside, the matter is remanded to
the Disciplinary Authority, who shall proceed against the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.186 of 2025 dt.14-05-2025
respondent in accordance with the procedure laid down under
CCA Rules as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others
[(2009) 2 SCC 570] and Punjab National Bank and others
versus Kunj Bihari Mishra [(1998)7 SSC 84] from the stage
from where the vulnerability surfaced and conclude the
proceedings against the writ petitioner/respondent within a
period of 6 months.
20. The appeal stands dismissed, however, with the above
modification.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash/-
AFR/NAFR NA
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.5.2025
Transmission Date NA
