Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 9 October, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11354 of 2024
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Singh Son of Visheshwar Singh Resident of village- Surujpura,
P.O- Traitha, Police Station- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bihar), Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home,
Govt. of Bihar at Patna.
2. Director General of Police, Bihar at Patna.
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patna.
4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Zone, District- Dharbhanga.
5. Superintendent of Police, Madhubani.
6. Central Selection Board through its Special Work Officer, Patna Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Advocate
For the C.S.B. : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, AC to GP-22
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-10-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned
counsel for the C.S.B and learned counsel for the State.
2. The present petition is filed invoking the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India inter alia seeking the following reliefs -
"I. That the present Writ application is
being filed in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the Memo No. 2698 dated 10.08.2015
passed by the D.I.G, Darbhanga affirming the
order passed by Superintendent of Police,
Madhubani in district order no. 1251 of 2018
(Annexure-P/14-A) by which the order of the
dismissal of the petitioner from the post of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
2/16
constable has been upheld on the ground; that the
order passed is without reason, without the
consideration of the grounds taken in appeal by
petitioner, the initial enquiry done is defective and
is in violation of Rule 17 and 18 of Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 2005 [Hereinafter referred as
"Bihar CCA Rules, 2005"]
II. The present writ application is being
filed in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the
order of dismissal/termination by memo no. 2228
(R.Ka) dated 25.08.2017 passed by the
Superintendent of Police by which the petitioner
has been dismissed from the post of constable on
the ground that the order passed by the
Superintendent of Police is without consideration
of second show cause reply, there is non reasoned
assigned for the dismissal of the petitioner by the
superintendent of Police, Madhubani, the
dismissal order is based on the enquiry report
which has not followed the due process of law as
given under Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
III. The present writ application is being
filed in the nature of Mandamus for a direction to
the respondent authority especially the
Superintendent of Police, Madhubani to reinstate
the petitioner on the post of constable with all
consequential benefits till date."
3. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of the
present writ are that, pursuant to the vacancies sent by the Police
Headquarters, the advertisement No. 01 of 2014 was published
by the Central Selection Board of Constables, for recruiting
11,783 Constables in the District Police Force, the BMP
Battalions and other units and applications were invited from
suitable candidates. The present petitioner had applied against
the aforesaid advertisement and was allotted the Roll No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
3/16
2859240390 and Admit Card was issued to him. Subsequently,
the written examination was conducted on 19.10.2014 for which
more than 7.57 lakhs candidates had appeared and the results
thereof was published on 04.02.2015. Thereafter, the successful
candidates were called for the screening / physical evaluation
test which was a qualifying stage. The instant petitioner
appeared in the physical examination and having been declared
successful, appeared in the aforesaid screening test and qualified
the same. The merit list was prepared based upon the marks
obtained by the candidates in the written test and the final
results were published on 23.06.2015 wherein the petitioner
stood qualified/successful. Thereafter the Central Selection
Board of Constables, on 23.06.2015 issued selection letter to the
petitioner and the petitioner was directed to report for joining at
the office of the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani, along
with all relevant original documents between 06.07.2015 and
30.07.2015
. Pursuant to the said joining, the petitioner was
given the Constable No. 563 bearing ID No. 805.
4. Thereafter, the Central Selection Board of
Constables received information that the instant petitioner had
indulged in malpractice and was able to secure his appointment
using a Bluetooth device to attempt his written examination.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
The aforesaid board, on 28.09.2015 had consequently directed
the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani to send the petitioner
along with the original documents to enquire into the
allegations. In presence of the officials of the Central Selection
Board of Constables and one officer sent by the Superintendent
of Police, Madhubani, an enquiry was conducted and questions
were put to the petitioner, wherein according to the respondent
authorities, the petitioner admitted in writing of having
succeeded in the written phase of the recruitment process with
the assistance of a Bluetooth device for which the father of the
petitioner had paid a total of Rs. 3,50,000/- to one Aftab.
Accordingly, the aforesaid board, directed the S.P., Madhubani
to institute an F.I.R against the petitioner for committing fraud
and malpractice and F.I.R in connection with P.S. Case No. 443
of 2015 under sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420, 120-B read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 66-D of the I.T
Act came to be registered. The petitioner was arrested on
10.12.2015 and was remanded to judicial custody. The
chargesheet was submitted on 20.12.2015 before the trial Court.
The present petitioner had moved this Court seeking regular bail
in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 57993 of 2015, wherein vide
order dated 04.01.2016, the petitioner was enlarged on bail.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
5. Vide letter dated 09.02.2016, the Superintendent
of Police, Madhubani had issued a memo of charge against the
petitioner and Madhubani departmental proceedings No. 07 of
2016 was initiated against the petitioner. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that total five charges were
levelled against te petitioner which were as under - Firstly that
he was appointed against Advertisement No. 01 of 2014 and has
done irregularities for appointment on the post of constable,
secondly the petitioner was found to has less knowledge and it
was found the proceeding against the Petitioner, thirdly that the
petitioner had accepted the claim in writting that he used a
Bluetooth to pass the examination, fourthly that an amount of
Rs. 3,50,000 has been also give by the father of the Petitioner to
one Aftaab Mobile Number and fifthly that an F.I.R was filed
against the Petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that all together seven documents were to be given
and five witnesses were to be examined.
6. It is categorically submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner was called at
the Central Selection Board of Constables, the petitioner under
pressure and coercion had admitted to having used a Bluetooth
device while attempting the written phase of the recruitment
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
process. Further the documents relied/attached were nether
supplied to the petitioner nor was the petitioner given any
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has vehemently denied having issued or served
any notices dated 09.10.2016, 17.11.2016, 04.12.2016,
10.01.2017, 03.04.2017 and 04.07.2017.
7. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the
respondent nos. 1 to 5, wherein the answering respondents have
submitted the brief facts relevant for the case and have opposed
the prayer of the writ petition.
8. The Central Selection Board of Constables has
filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been submitted that the
Board has at paragraph no 18 of their counter affidavit have
submitted that the board has no role to play.
9. I have heard and considered the submissions of
the parties.
10. It may be gainful to refer to the authoritative
pronouncements from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which have
cemented and crystallized the position of law on this aspect.
11. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of
India, reported as (1990) 4 SCC 594, while considering one of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
the questions, whether there is a general principle of law which
requires an administrative authority to record the reasons for its
decision, had held as under:-
36. Reasons, when recorded by an
administrative authority in an order passed by it while
exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt
facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate
or supervisory authority. But the other considerations,
referred to above, which have also weighed with this
Court in holding that an administrative authority must
record reasons for its decision, are of no less
significance. These considerations show that the
recording of reasons by an administrative authority
serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances
of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in
the process of decision making. The said purpose
would apply equally to all decisions and its application
cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to
appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion,
therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded
should govern the decisions of an administrative
authority exercising quasi-judicial functions
irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject
to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however,
be added that it is not required that the reasons should
be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The
extent and nature of the reasons would depend on
particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary
is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to
indicate that the authority has given due
consideration to the points in controversy. The need
for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the
order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or
revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need
not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional
authority agrees with the reasons contained in the
order under challenge.
37. Having considered the rationale for
the requirement to record the reasons for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
decision of an administrative authority exercising
quasi-judicial functions we may now examine the
legal basis for imposing this obligation. While
considering this aspect the Donoughmore
Committee observed that it may well be argued that
there is a third principle of natural justice, namely,
that a party is entitled to know the reason for the
decision, be it judicial or quasi-judicial. The
Committee expressed the opinion that "there are
some cases where the refusal to give grounds for a
decision may be plainly unfair; and this may be so,
even when the decision is final and no further
proceedings are open to the disappointed party by
way of appeal or otherwise" and that "where
further proceedings are open to a disappointed
party, it is contrary to natural justice that the
silence of the Minister or the Ministerial Tribunal
should deprive them of the opportunity". (p. 80)
Prof. H.W.R. Wade has also expressed the view that
"natural justice may provide the best rubric for it,
since the giving of reasons is required by the
ordinary man's sense of justice". (See Wade,
Administrative Law, 6th edn. p. 548.) In Siemens
Engineering Co. case [(1976) 2 SCC 981 : 1976
Supp SCR 489] this Court has taken the same view
when it observed that "the rule requiring reasons
to be given in support of an order is, like the
principles of audi alteram partem, a basic principle
of natural justice which must inform every quasi-
judicial process". This decision proceeds on the
basis that the two well known principles of natural
justice, namely (i) that no man should be a judge in
his own cause, and (ii) that no person should be
judged without a hearing, are not exhaustive and
that in addition to these two principles there may be
rules which seek to ensure fairness in the process of
decision-making and can be regarded as part of the
principles of natural justice. This view is in
consonance with the law laid down by this Court in
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 :
(1970) 1 SCR 457] wherein it has been held : (SCR
pp. 468-69 : SCC p. 272, para 20)
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
"The concept of natural justice has
undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In
the past it was thought that it included just two rules
namely : (i) no one shall be a judge in his own
cause (nemo debet esse judex propria causa), and
(ii) no decision shall be given against a party
without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi
alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule
was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial
enquiries must he held in good faith, without bias
and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the
course of years many more subsidiary rules came to
be added to the rules of natural justice."
38. A similar trend is discernible in the
decisions of English courts wherein it has been held
that natural justice demands that the decision should
be based on some evidence of probative value. (See : R.
v. Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner ex p.
Moore [(1965) 1 QB 456 : (1965) 1 All ER 81] ;
Mahon v. Air New Zealand Ltd. [1984 AC 648 : (1984)
3 All ER 201] )
39. The object underlying the rules of
natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice"
and secure "fair play in action". As pointed out
earlier the requirement about recording of reasons
for its decision by an administrative authority
exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this
object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and
ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of
decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding
horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of
the opinion, that the requirement to record reason
can be regarded as one of the principles of natural
justice which govern exercise of power by
administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice
are not embodied rules. The extent of their application
depends upon the particular statutory framework
whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the
administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of
a particular power by an administrative authority
including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial
functions the legislature, while conferring the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public
interest that the reasons for the order passed by the
administrative authority be recorded in the order and
be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may
dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by
making an express provision to that effect as those
contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of
U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial
Review) Act, 1977 of Australia whereby the orders
passed by certain specified authorities are excluded
from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can
also arise by necessary implication from the nature of
the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of the
enactment. The public interest underly-ing such a
provision would outweigh the salutary purpose served
by the requirement to record the reasons. The said
requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such
a case.
40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be
concluded that except in cases where the requirement
has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary
implication, an administrative authority exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to
record the reasons for its decision.
12. Summarizing the principles of law, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v.
Masood Ahmed Khan, reported as (2010) 9 SCC 496, had held
as under -
"46. The position in the United States has been
indicated by this Court in S.N. Mukherjee
[(1990) 4 SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669 : 1991
SCC (L&S) 242 : (1991) 16 ATC 445 : AIR
1990 SC 1984] in SCC p. 602, para 11 : AIR
para 11 at p. 1988 of the judgment. This Court
held that in the United States the courts have
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
always insisted on the recording of reasons by
administrative authorities in exercise of their
powers. It was further held that such recording
of reasons is required as "the courts cannot
exercise their duty of review unless they are
advised of the considerations underlying the
action under review". In S.N. Mukherjee
[(1990) 4 SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669 : 1991
SCC (L&S) 242 : (1991) 16 ATC 445 : AIR
1990 SC 1984] this Court relied on the
decisions of the US Court in Securities and
Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corpn. [87 L
Ed 626 : 318 US 80 (1942)] and Dunlop v.
Bachowski [44 L Ed 2d 377 : 421 US 560
(1974)] in support of its opinion discussed
above."
"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this
Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has
always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must
record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of
reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not
only be done it must also appear to be done
as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also
operates as a valid restraint on any
possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and
quasi-judicial or even administrative
power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion
has been exercised by the decision-maker
on relevant grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
as indispensable a component of a
decision-making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial,
quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of
judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all
countries committed to rule of law and
constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts.
This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial
decision-making justifying the principle
that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial
opinions these days can be as different as
the judges and authorities who deliver
them. All these decisions serve one
common purpose which is to demonstrate
by reason that the relevant factors have
been objectively considered. This is
important for sustaining the litigants' faith
in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a
requirement for both judicial accountability
and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial
authority is not candid enough about
his/her decision-making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person
deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions
must be cogent, clear and succinct. A
pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp
reasons" is not to be equated with a valid
decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that
transparency is the sine qua non of
restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision-making not only
makes the judges and decision-makers less
prone to errors but also makes them subject
to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in
Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100
Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)
(n) Since the requirement to record
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
reasons emanates from the broad doctrine
of fairness in decision-making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component
of human rights and was considered part of
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija
v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at
562 para 29 and Anya v. University of
Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] ,
wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of
the European Convention of Human Rights
which requires, "adequate and intelligent
reasons must be given for judicial
decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions
judgments play a vital role in setting up
precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving
reasons for the decision is of the essence
and is virtually a part of "due process".
13. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three
basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is
required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected
adversely, must be granted an opportunity of being heard.
Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and
transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must
apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or
speaking order. A disciplinary authority acting in a quasi-
judicial capacity, arriving at an adverse finding to impose a
punishment must support the same with cogent reasons. The
orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the
grounds upon which the administrative agency acted, be clearly
disclosed and adequately sustained. The importance of passing a
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
reasoned order by such an authority is sine qua non and
numerous judicial precedents have time and again underscored
the imperative and fundamental importance of recording the
reasons.
14. Pertinently, the law laid down in Roop Singh
Negi v. Punjab National Bank, reported as (2009) 2 SCC 570
had held that examination of witnesses is not an inviolable rule
and that it would depend on the facts of each case. Considering
the facts of the present case, it is clear, that the finding of guilt
in the factual prism of the present case could not have been
arrived at without examination of the witnesses, and therefore
not affording an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine
the witnesses and directly drawing a conclusion is violative of
the principles of natural justice and as such would vitiate the
process.
15. Further, turning to the facts of the present case,
it is evident that the respondent authorities acting in quasi-
judicial capacity have to act fairly. Pertinently, the petitioner
was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
and the documents relied upon have also not been supplied to
him. The documents must not only be placed in the disciplinary
proceedings but also be proved for it to be relied upon in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
proceedings.
16. It is trite law that the disciplinary authority
acting in quasi-judicial capacity must meet the threshold of
preponderance of possibilities before arriving at a finding of
guilt. In the present case, it appears that the disciplinary
authority has failed to meet the threshold and awarded the
maximum punishment without strictly adhering to the Principles
of natural justice.
17. The disciplinary authority not having afforded
adequate opportunity to defend himself and not passing an order
after due consideration can not be sustained.
18. Accordingly considering the afore-quoted
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the deviation from
the strict adherence to the principles of natural justice, as noted
herein above, the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the
petitioner can not be sustained. Therefore the impugned orders
dated 25.08.2017 passed by Superintendent of Police,
Madhubani by which the petitioner was dismissed from service
and the appellate order dated 10.08.2018, rejecting the appeal
are hereby quashed. The respondent no. 5 is hereby directed to
reinstate the petitioner in the service forthwith. The petitioner
shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as are admissible
Patna High Court CWJC No.11354 of 2024 dt.09-10-2025
under law.
19. The certified copy of the order by which the
learned trial Court had discharged the petitioner is taken on
record.
20. This writ petition is allowed to the above
extent.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.10.2025
Transmission Date NA
