Patna High Court
Bijay Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 18 November, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case no.14489 of 2017
======================================================
1.1. Mani Devi Wife of Late Bijay Kumar Singh, Resident of Village - Purani
Bazar Kharia, P.S. Kurshela, District Katihar.
1.2. Santosh Kumar Singh Son of late Bijay Kumar Singh, Resident of Village -
Purani Bazar Kharia, P.S. Kurshela, District Katihar.
1.3. Amit Kumar Singh Son of late Bijay Kumar Singh, Resident of Village -
Purani Bazar Kharia, P.S. Kurshela, District Katihar.
1.4. Sumit Kumar Singh Son of late Bijay Kumar Singh, Resident of Village -
Purani Bazar Kharia, P.S. Kurshela, District Katihar.
1.5. Juli Kumari D/o Late Bijay Kumar Singh, Wife of Rajesh Singh, Resident of
Village Anandpur, Ward no. 26, P.O. and P.S. Anandpur, District- Begusarai.
1.6. Kumari Jyoti Rani D/o Late Bijay Kumar Singh, Wife of Rupesh Kumar
Singh, Resident of Village - Ramaili, P.O. and P.S. Khudna Rupaspur,
District- Katihar.
1.7. Priti Kumari D/o Late Bijay Kumar Singh, Wife of Abhishek Raj Ujjwal,
Residing at Koshy Colony, P.S. Kursela, District- Katihar.
1.8. Shruti Singh D/o Late Bijay Kumar Singh, Wife of Gaurav Kumar Singh,
Resident of Village - Balchi Maheshpur, P.S. Kurshela, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
3. The Deputy Inspector general of Police East Zone, Bhagalpur
4. The Senoir Superintendent of Police Bhagalpur
5. The Superintending of Police Bhagalpur
6. The Superintending of Police, Begusarai
7. The Conducting Officer Being Inspector of Police, Sadar Circle, Bhagalpur
8. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, Advocate
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC 8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 18-11-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
Patna High Court CWJC no.14489 of 2017 dt.18-11-2025
2/9
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The original petitioner filed the instant application
for the following reliefs:
"(i) For quashing of the impugned order
(Anneuxre-13) in part as contained in Memo no.
3688/L-1 dated 22.08.2012, passed by Director
General of Police, Bihar, Patna (Respondent
no.-2), to the extent, whereby and where under,
the salary of petitioner for the period, since
January 2011 to September, 2012 has been
withheld and two increments of pay scale has
also been withheld.
(ii) For commanding and directing the relevant
respondent(s) to extend all the subsequently
benefits to the petitioner arising out of such part
quashing of the impugned order.
(iii) For grant of such other relief(s) for which
the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts
and circumstances of this case."
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was
appointed as a Constable in the Katihar District Police
Force in the year 1974. A departmental proceeding was
initiated against him on 18.7.2006 for the reason that four
accused persons, who had been remanded to judicial
custody and were being escorted by the petitioner from the
Patna High Court CWJC no.14489 of 2017 dt.18-11-2025
3/9
Court to jail, escaped. The departmental proceeding ended
in an order of dismissal from service being passed against
the petitioner by the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Bhagalpur on 28.12.2010.
4. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected
and finally after the direction of the High Court in CWJC
no. 1855 of 2012 the memorial filed by the petitioner was
decided by the Director General of Police, Bihar, who by
his order dated 22.8.2012, was pleased to modify the order
of dismissal passed against the petitioner. The petitioner
was taken back in service and order of punishment
imposing two black marks was passed against him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
once the order of punishment of dismissal from service had
been modified by the DGP taking into consideration various
mitigating factors including that six accused had to be
escorted by the petitioner alone which was a difficult work
and that it had not been proved that the escape of the
accused was facilitated by the petitioner for his personal
gains, on modification of the order of punishment from
Patna High Court CWJC no.14489 of 2017 dt.18-11-2025
4/9
dismissal to imposition of two black marks, the petitioner
should be paid his arrears of salary for the period that he
was illegally restrained from working.
6. The application was opposed by learned counsel for
the respondents. It was submitted that the petitioner had
been proceeded against in a departmental proceeding for a
very serious charge according to which four convicts who
were being escorted by the petitioner from Court to jail,
escaped. It was submitted that under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the scope of interference in an order of
punishment passed in a departmental proceeding was very
limited, the scope being only to see as to whether there was
any procedural fault. The petitioner not having been able to
point out any procedural fault, he had rightly been denied
arrears of salary for the period of his dismissal from
28.12.2010
to 22.8.2012 on the principles of 'no work, no
pay'.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
8. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner,
Patna High Court CWJC no.14489 of 2017 dt.18-11-2025
who was a Constable in the Bihar Police posted in the
district of Bhagalpur was proceeded against in a
departmental proceeding in year 2006, the proceeding
ending in an order of punishment dated 28.12.2010 of
dismissal from service being passed against the petitioner
by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur. The
appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by order
dated 9.7.2011 passed by the Deputy Inspector General,
East Zone, Bhagalpur.
9. The petitioner preferred a memorial before the
DGP, however not having received any response to the
same, filed CWJC no. 1855 of 2012 in the Patna High Court
Court which was disposed of by order dated 27.2.2012
directing the DGP to dispose of the memorial filed by the
petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order within the time
fixed. The memorial filed by the petitioner was rejected by
the order impugned dated 22.08.2012 passed by the DGP.
10. The order of punishment of dismissal from service
was modified to the punishment of imposition of two black
marks. It was further held that on the principles of 'no
Patna High Court CWJC no.14489 of 2017 dt.18-11-2025
work, no pay,' the petitioner will not be entitled for any
salary/ allowance for the period of his dismissal, however,
the petitioner will be treated to have been on extraordinary
leave for the said period.
11. The petitioner was dismissed from service by
order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Bhagalpur. Subsequently by order dated
22.8.2012 of the DGP, Bihar the order of dismissal was
modified, the petitioner was taken back in service and the
order of punishment was changed to imposition of two
black marks. Once the respondent authorities themselves,
for good reasons found the order the punishment of
dismissal to be not sustainable in view of the reasons spelt
out in the order dated 22.8.2012 of the DGP, Bihar, in the
opinion of the Court, the petitioner could not have been
denied the arrears of salary for the period of dismissal on
the principles of 'no work, no pay'.
12. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti
Junior Adyapak Mahavidyalaya; (2013) 10 SCC 324, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC no.14489 of 2017 dt.18-11-2025
"22. The very idea of restoring an employee
to the position which he held before dismissal or
removal or termination of service implies that
the employee will be put in the same position in
which he would have been but for the illegal
action taken by the employer. The injury suffered
by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is
otherwise terminated from service cannot easily
be measured in terms of money. With the passing
of an order which has the effect of severing the
employer-employee relationship, the latter's
source of income gets dried up. Not only the
employee concerned, but his entire family suffers
grave adversities. They are deprived of the
source of sustenance. The children are deprived
of nutritious food and all opportunities of
education and advancement in life. At times, the
family has to borrow from the relatives and other
acquaintance to avoid starvation. These
sufferings continue till the competent
adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the
action taken by the employer. The reinstatement
of such an employee, which is preceded by a
finding of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial
body or court that the action taken by the
employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory
provisions or the principles of natural justice,
entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If
the employer wants to deny back wages to the
employee or contest his entitlement to get
Patna High Court CWJC no.14489 of 2017 dt.18-11-2025
consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to
specifically plead and prove that during the
intervening period the employee was gainfully
employed and was getting the same emoluments.
The denial of back wages to an employee, who
has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer
would amount to indirectly punishing the
employee concerned and rewarding the employer
by relieving him of the obligation to pay back
wages including the emoluments."
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the contents of the petition together with
materials on record, in view of the facts of the case and the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Deepali
Gundu Surwase (supra), this Court partly sets aside the
order dated 22.8.2012 passed by the DGP, Bihar, to the
extent that it held the petitioner not entitled for any
salary/allowance for the period of his dismissal.
14. The petitioner is held entitled for the arrears of
salary and allowances for the period from the date of his
dismissal ie 28.12.2010 to the date of his reinstatement ie
22.8.2012. The arrears shall be paid to the petitioner by the
respondents within a period of three months from the date
Patna High Court CWJC no.14489 of 2017 dt.18-11-2025
of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
15. The writ application stands allowed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 30.10.2025
Uploading Date 18.11.2025
Transmission Date
