Patna High Court
Deo Chandra Jha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 6 May, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7317 of 2016
======================================================
Deo Chandra Jha
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar and Ors.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, Advocate
Mr. Prisu Snehil, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Advocate (GP-24)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-05-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been filed for quashing of order dated
15.05.2014 passed in Service Appeal No. 11 of 2012 by the
Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Darbhanga, as well as
order dated 15.12.2011 contained in Memo No. 72 whereby and
whereunder the Collector Madhubani has been pleased to pass an
order of punishment against the petitioner that nothing except
subsistence allowance would be given to the petitioner for the
period during which the petitioner remained suspended.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order
dated 05.12.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority has already
set-aside, in which violation of CCA Rules 2005 has been made.
Counsel for petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority has
Patna High Court CWJC No.7317 of 2016 dt.06-05-2025
2/8
categorically indicated that there is gross violation of Rule 11(5) of
the CCA Rules 2005 in passing the order of punishment dated
05.12.2011
as the said order does not contain the order of
punishment and it categorically indicates the effect of punishment
and it is due to this reason, the Appellate Court has set-aside the
entire order and remanded back the matter to the Disciplinary
Authority to pass order afresh. He submits that the said
Disciplinary Authority has passed order on the basis of charge
which has been issued not in accordance with any supportive
witnesses or on the basis of any documentary witnesses. He further
submits that remanding back the matter to pass order afresh shall
be a futile exercise particularly when there is no material on record
on the basis of which the disciplinary authority is in a position to
pass the final order of punishment in accordance with law
imposing punishment as laid down under Rule 14 of the CCA
Rules, 2005. In support of his argument, Counsel relied on two
judgments: The First Judgment of which he is relying is the case of
Dinesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 2006(4) PLJR 514
and submits that in the said case there is gross violation of Rule
97(3) of the Bihar Service Code has been made and since no
opportunity was given to the petitioner in terms of Rule 97(3) of
the Code. Non-observance of provision of 97(3) of the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.7317 of 2016 dt.06-05-2025
Service Code amounts to the violation of principles of natural
justice and, therefore, such type of order could not be sustainable
and be set-aside. The another case on which counsel for the
petitioner has relied is the case of Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P.
reported in (2012) 5 SCC 242, the relevant paragraphs reads as
follows:-
"11. Admittedly, the punishment
imposed upon the appellant is not
provided for under Rule 4 of the 1991
Rules. Integrity of a person can be
withheld for sufficient reasons at the
time of filling up the annual confidential
report. However, if the statutory rules so
prescribe, it can also be withheld as
punishment. The order passed by the
disciplinary authority withholding the
integrity certificate as a punishment for
delinquency is without jurisdiction, a
not being provided under the 1991
Rules, since the same could not be
termed as punishment under the Rules.
The Rules do not empower the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7317 of 2016 dt.06-05-2025
disciplinary authority to impose "any
other" major or minor punishment. It is
a settled proposition of law that
punishment not prescribed under the
Rules as a result of disciplinary
proceedings cannot be awarded.
15. Imposing the punishment for a
proved delinquency is regulated and
controlled by the statutory rules.
Therefore, while performing the quasi-
judicial functions, the authority is not
permitted to ignore the statutory rules
under which punishment is to be
imposed. The disciplinary authority is
bound to give strict adherence to the
said rules. Thus, the order of
punishment being outside the purview of
the statutory rules is a nullity and
cannot be enforced against the
appellant."
4. The second proposition is that the punishment not
prescribed under the Rule as a result the disciplinary proceeding
Patna High Court CWJC No.7317 of 2016 dt.06-05-2025
cannot be awarded and, therefore, imposing the punishment for a
proved delinquency is regulated and controlled by the statutory
rule. Therefore, the order of punishment being outside the purview
of the statutory rule is a nullity and cannot be enforced against the
appellant. Learned Counsel submits that violation of the
provisions of CCA Rule and also violation of Rule 97(3) of the
Bihar Service Code vitiates the entire proceedings and in no case
the proceeding against the petitioner, who has already retired 14
years back in the year 2011 itself is sustainable in the eye of law,
particularly, when he is not getting his pensionary benefits till date
after such a long litigation.
5. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits
that in the counter affidavit it is very much clear that the order of
disciplinary authority dated 15.12.2011 has been challenged before
the appellate forum in service appeal No.11 of 2012 in which the
final order has been passed by the Appellate Authority on
15.05.2014, which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the present writ
petition. He submits that the petitioner is a clever litigant on the
one hand, the order has been passed in his favour in Appeal and
matter was remanded back in the year 2014, the petitioner is not
interested to pass order in appeal and, therefore, with a view to
stop the proceeding, he has challenged the order passed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7317 of 2016 dt.06-05-2025
Appellate Court before this Hon'ble Court in the year 2016 by
way of the present writ petition and due to the pendency of the
writ petition, the disciplinary authority has restrained himself from
passing any order in compliance of the Appellate Authority.
6. Learned Counsel for the State further submits that it
is due to the petitioner, who challenged the appellate order, the
disciplinary authority could not comply the order passed by the
appellate forum and, therefore, he submits that the petitioner is
playing hot and cold simultaneously and, therefore, this writ
petition be dismissed and direction be given to the disciplinary
authority to pass order afresh in accordance with law as directed
by the appellate Court.
7. In this case a unique situation has developed due
to long pendency as the appellate order has been passed in
15.05.2014 directing the disciplinary authority to pass order afresh.
In the year 2016, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition
challenging the order passed by the Appellate Court. From the
contention made by the petitioner, it transpires to this Court, that
the petitioner is fully agree on the reasoning given by the Appellate
forum but he has filed the writ petition seeking a direction that
passing order by Disciplinary Authority in the light of the direction
made by the Appellate Authority shall not solve any purpose and
Patna High Court CWJC No.7317 of 2016 dt.06-05-2025
justice shall not be made with the petitioner, due to the reason that
there are already series of procedural mistakes made under the
disciplinary proceedings which cannot be rectified even if matter
has been remanded back. He submits that remanding back this
matter shall be a futile exercise and shall continue further
litigation, petitioner is now old aged person and shall suffer a lot
since he has retired in the year 2011 and it is 2025. For the last 14
years, he is in search of justice and due to pendency of the
litigation, he could not get any relief.
8. From perusal of the charge memo, it transpires to
this Court that charge memo is defective. It also transpires to this
Court that appellate forum has been violated the provisions of law
and Rule 11(5) of the CCA Rules, 2005, has been violated and it is
due to this reason, the appellate forum has rightly directed that
matter has been remanded back. Now with a view to take any
decision by checking the appellate order, this Court has to look
into the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court that whether Appellate
Court is competent enough to remand back the matter or not and
order of the Appellate Court shall be applicable in part and
discarded in part or shall be applicable in toto.
8. In this background, the Appellate forum at the time
of passing the final order, has categorically indicates the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7317 of 2016 dt.06-05-2025
procedural wrongs done by the disciplinary authority and it is well
within his power to remand back the matter. Only due to pendency
of the present writ petition, this matter could not be decided as
indicated by the disciplinary authority.
9. In this view of the matter, this Court is not
interfering in the Appellate Court's order and disposed off the
present writ petition with a direction that the disciplinary authority
shall pass final order in the light of the Appellate Court's order
within 60 days from the date of production of a copy of this order
before the Disciplinary Authority. In case, the Disciplinary
Authority fails to pass order within 60 days from the date of
production of this order before him, then it shall be assumed that
the Disciplinary Authority has no point to pass an order and in that
case, petitioner shall be entitled for all benefits for which he is
entitled for.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ
petition stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Sudhanshu/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date
Transmission Date NA
