Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 13 October, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21988 of 2012
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Uday Narayan Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-
Baluatal, Behind of Satkar Hotel, P.S.- Motihari Town, District- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur
3. The District Collector, Motihari East Champaran
4. The District Certificate Officer, Motihari, East Champaran
5. The District Establishment Deputy Collector, East Champaran, Motihari
6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Chakia, District- East Champaran
7. The Block Development Officer, Chakia, District- East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Pd. Gupta, GP-10
Mr. Virendra Kuar, AC to GP-10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-10-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application
praying for quashing the order dated 11.2.2012 passed by the
District Collector, Motihari, East Champaran imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner and
further ordering to institute a certificate case. The petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
2/21
has further prayed for quashing the initiation of the
proceedings of Certificate Case no. 5/11-12 pending in the
Court of the District Certificate Officer, Motihari, East
Champaran, which has been initiated on the basis of the letter
no.482 dated 19.3.2012 of the Block Development Officer,
Chakia, for quashing the order dated 20.3.2012 passed in
Certificate Case no.5/11-12 by the District Certificate Officer,
Motihari, East Champaran, to treat the petitioner in regular
service since 21.2.2003 and to release full dues of payment of
salary etc from 1.2.2003 to 30.6.2005 and from 1.4.2008
onwards and for grant of other reliefs to which the petitioner is
found entitled.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that while he
was posted as Block Nazir in Barachakia Block in the District
of East Champaran, the then Block Development Officer
(B.D.O) of Chakia Block namely Rajesh Kumar did not hand
over charge of cash to one Arun Kumar Singh. This led to an
enquiry being conducted by the Land Reforms Deputy
Collector (L.R.D.C) on the direction of the District Collector,
Motihari who proceeded to submit a report alleging
misappropriation of a total amount of Rs.45,99,278.43 by
Rajesh Kumar, the then B.D.O and the petitioner. This led to
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
3/21
registration of an F.I.R being Chakia P.S. Case no.146 of 2002.
The petitioner was thereafter placed under suspension, vide
order dated 21.2.2003. The petitioner challenged the order of
suspension by filing CWJC no. 11698 of 2004 in this Court,
which was disposed of by order dated 4.5.2005 directing the
respondent to issue charge-sheet against the petitioner within a
period of 21 days, to commence the disciplinary proceeding
and to conclude the same within a period of 1 year. It was
further ordered that in case the charge-sheet is not issued within
the time mentioned in the order, on the expiry of the period to
issue the charge-sheet, the order of suspension shall
automatically stand revoked and the petitioner should be
permitted to rejoin his duties.
4. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on
10.8.2005
and was directed to submit his explanation. It was
further ordered that the order of suspension of the petitioner
shall continue. The petitioner submitted his explanation before
the Conducting Officer. Subsequently by order dated
22.8.2006, the petitioner was released from suspension while
the disciplinary proceedings continued.
5. The Conducting Officer submitted his enquiry
report in the case, a copy of which was served on the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
along with the letter dated 26.8.2006, asking the petitioner to
reply to the same within a period of 15 days.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the documents
demanded by him were not supplied, still he submitted his
reply to the second show-cause notice on 4.9.2006. The
petitioner was released from suspension, however, without
furnishing the documents demanded by the petitioner, the
respondents came out with the order of punishment of
dismissal from service of the petitioner on 31.3.2008.
7. The petitioner filed his statutory service appeal
before the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur on 29.4.2008, however the same was dismissed on
20.4.2009.
8. The petitioner challenged the order of punishment
of his dismissal from service dated 31.3.2008 as also the order
dated 20.4.2009 rejecting his appeal in CWJC no.17253 of
2009. Taking into consideration the contention of the petitioner
that the documents asked for by him had not been supplied to
him. The order of punishment dated 31.3.2008 as also the
appellate order dated 20.4.2009 were both set aside and the writ
application was disposed of remanding the matter to the
Enquiry Officer with the observation that either the documents
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
asked for by the petitioner are to be supplied or else the
Enquiry Officer has to record his finding of irrelevance of the
documents asked for.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that on the matter being remanded back, the
petitioner was served with another charge-sheet in Prapatra-
Ka on 23.11.2010 asking him to show-cause within a period of
15 days to which the petitioner filed his reply. The petitioner
again demanded the relevant documents mentioned in the said
show-cause. Inspite of repeated communications by the
Conducting Officer to the Block Development Officer to make
the documents available to the petitioner, the documents were
not made available. The Conducting Officer proceeded to
submit his enquiry report, a copy of which was served on the
petitioner along with letter dated 18.10.2011 asking the
petitioner to submit his show-cause to the same within a period
of 15 days. The petitioner filed his reply to the second show-
cause on which the District Magistrate, East Champaran,
Motihari came out with the order of punishment dated
11.2.2012 dismissing the petitioner from service and also
ordering the institution of a certificate case for recovery of the
defalcated amount of Rs. 45,99,278.43.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not provided with the relevant documents in
support of the charge as also those demanded by him which
disabled the petitioner from giving an effective reply to the
charges levelled. It was further submitted that no audit report
etc were provided to the petitioner nor the irrelevancy of the
document so demanded has been dealt with in the enquiry
report or the order of punishment. It is further submitted that
the petitioner, in absence of the order of punishment of
dismissal, would have retired from service on 31.12.2016. The
finding of guilt against the petitioner is based on hypothetical
presumption and on that basis no recovery can be made under
the Bihar and Odissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. As
such, the initiation of the certificate proceedings under the
P.D.R Act is bad in the eyes of law and the same be also set
aside.
11. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had been
proceeded against on an earlier occasion which ended in order
of dismissal being passed against him on 31.3.2008 and the
appeal preferred by the petitioner being rejected on 20.4.2009.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
The writ application preferred by the petitioner being CWJC
no.17253 of 2009 was allowed by order dated 31.3.2010,
however the matter was remanded to the Enquiry Officer to
proceed with the departmental proceeding after supply of the
documents demanded by the petitioner and giving him an
opportunity to file his show-cause.
12. It is further submitted by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents that the petitioner was once
again served with a charge-sheet in Prapatra-Ka on
23.11.2010 giving him an opportunity to submit his show-
cause but the petitioner at every stage of the proceedings
started making demand of documents. It is submitted in
reference to the statement made in counter affidavit that the
Presenting Officer filed his opinion against the show-cause of
the writ petitioner and the copy of the documents demanded
by the writ petitioner was served on him. Those documents
like the counterfoil of the cheque, providing a photocopy of
which was difficult, in those cases the petitioner was given an
opportunity to physically inspect the same. The petitioner filed
his reply to the show-cause and the Conducting Officer having
considered the contents of the reply as also the evidence
produced by the Presenting Officer in course of enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
reached the conclusion in his report that the charges levelled
against the petitioner were proved.
13. The petitioner was supplied with a copy of the
enquiry report and asked to file his show-cause as to why
punishment be not imposed. It was on the petitioner filing his
reply to the show-cause that the Disciplinary Authority ie the
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari
passed the order of punishment dated 11.2.2012, impugned
herein. There is no irregularity in the proceedings conducted
against the petitioner nor any merit in the instant application.
It is thus prayed that the application be dismissed.
14. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on
record.
15. The relevant facts in brief are that while the
petitioner was posted as Block Nazir at Barachakia Block in
the District of East Champaran, on the then B.D.O, Chakia
Block not handing over charge to the new B.D.O, on the
directions of the District Magistrate, an enquiry was
conducted by the L.R.D.C, who submitted a report to the
effect that a sum of Rs.45.99 lakhs (approx) had been
misappropriated by the then B.D.O Rajesh Kumar and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
petitioner herein. This also led to institution of an F.I.R being
Chakia P.S. Case no.146 of 2002.
16. The order placing the petitioner under
suspension on 21.2.2003 was challenged by him in CWJC
no.11698 of 2004, which was disposed of by order dated
4.5.2005 in the following terms :-
"However, there is no just reason
forthcoming as to why a disciplinary proceeding
could not be initiated against the petitioner by
issuing a chargrsheet even after expiry of more
than two years from the date the petitioner was
put under suspension. The respondents have
deliberately failed to supply proper information to
the Court by not filing counter affidavit despite
obtaining leave to do. The respondents have acted
in a manner unwarranted by not responding to
the Fax message sent by their lawyer.
In those circumstances, the respondent
no.2 is directed to issue a chargesheet against the
petitioner within a period of twenty one days from
the date of service of a copy of this order upon
him and thereby to commence the disciplinary
proceeding and to grant to the petitioner fifteen
days time to give a reply to the charge-sheet and
also to conclude finally disciplinary proceeding
within one year from the date of receipt of the
reply. The expression conclude should denote
passing of the final order in the disciplinary
proceeding including an order required to be
passed under Rule 97 of the said Code in relation
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
to the period the petitioner was under suspension.
In the event, the chargesheet is not issued within
the time as mentioned above, on the expiry of the
period to issue the chargesheet, the order of
suspension shall automatically stand revoked and
the petitioner should be permitted to rejoin his
duties. In such event, the order under Rule 97
shall be passed within one year from the date the
petitioner would rejoin his services."
17. Bereft of unnecessary details, it may be stated
here that the proceedings continued against the petitioner
ending in an order of punishment of dismissal from service
being passed against the petitioner on 31.3.2008. The statutory
appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by order
dated 20.4.2009.
18. Both the order of punishment as also the order
rejecting his appeal were challenged by the petitioner by filing
CWJC no.17253 of 2009, wherein both the orders were set
aside and the matter remanded to the Enquiry Officer asking
him to provide the documents to the petitioner at the stage of
second show-cause notice and the petitioner was given the
liberty to file a further reply in pursuance of the documents
given to him. It was further observed that if the petitioner is
dissatisfied with the documents supplied and files any
application for more documents and satisfies the Enquiry
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
Officer, the same have to be supplied or else the Enquiry
Officer was required to record his finding of the irrelevance of
the documents asked for. The relevant part of the order dated
31.3.2010 disposing CWJC no.17253 of 2009 is reproduced
herein below for ready reference :-
"The order of punishment dated 31.3.2008
does not deal with these objections of the
petitioner at all that the departmental proceeding
was vitiated by severe procedural irregularities
when the enquiry officer adopted a procedure for
completing the enquiry unknown to law. For the
same reason the appellate order dated 20.4.2009
also becomes unsustainable. The orders dated
31.3.2008 and 20.4.2009 are accordingly set
aside.
The matter is remanded to the enquiry
officer. The petitioner, if so advised, may file
further reply in pursuance of the documents given
to him by the respondents at the stage of second
show cause notice with their communication
dated 1.12.2006.
If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the
documents supplied in context of his request
dated 2.9.2005 and files any application for more
documents and satisfies the enquiry officer, the
same have to be supplied as otherwise the
enquiry officer has to record his finding of the
irrelevance of the documents asked for.
Let the enquiry proceed thereafter afresh in
accordance with law and in the manner as
discussed above, to be concluded within a
maximum period of four months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order before
the disciplinary authority.
The original records of the departmental
proceedings are directed to be returned to the
counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
The petitioner shall be deemed to continue
under suspension for this period of four months
and shall therefore be entitled for his subsistence
allowance including arrears, if any.
The writ application stands disposed."
19. It transpires from the records of the case that the
petitioner filed an application before the District Collector on
13.4.2010, enclosing a copy of the order dated 31.3.2010 and
asking for the following documents ie (i) the report bearing
no.724246 and 724247 dated 7.7.2004 of the audit conducted
by the team of the Block Office, Chakia; (ii) audit report
no.724256 dated 8.7.2004; (iii) the enquiry report contained in
letter no.868 dated 18.8.2002 of the then L.R.D.C, Chakia,
Shri. Vishwamohan Prasad; (iv) the F.I.R. letter no.833 dated
9.8.2002 of the then B.D.O-cum-Circle Officer, Shri. Arun
Kumar Singh; (v) Bank passbooks and; (vi) the counterfoils of
the cheque book for the period the then B.D.O, Chakia Rajesh
Kumar was in-charge. The same was followed by another
representation dated 30.10.2010.
20. In the meantime, on 23.11.2010 the petitioner
was served with a charge-sheet in Prapatra-ka asking him to
submit his show-cause within a period of 15 days. While
submitting his detailed show-cause, the petitioner once again
demanded the aforesaid six documents, which had not been
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
made available to him inspite of his earlier requests.
21. It further transpires that letters/communications
dated 19.1.2011 and 31.3.2011 were also written by the
Enquiry Officer to the B.D.O, Chakia informing him that the
documents asked for by the petitioner had still not been made
available to him as a result of which he has not been able to
file his final reply to the show-cause. He was directed to make
available the documents asked for by the petitioner within a
period of 24 hours.
22. The stand of the respondents is that the
documents asked for by the petitioner were handed over to
him on 31.1.2011, however the petitioner in his reply to the
show-cause continued to demand more documents which was
more in the nature of delaying tactics by the petitioner.
23. At this stage it would be relevant to refer to one
of the representations filed by the petitioner addressed to the
Conducting Officer dated 4.2.2011 (Annexure-23) wherein the
petitioner mentions about the documents asked for by him as
also the documents which have been made available to show
that the relevant documents for the relevant period were not
made available to him.
24. Even in absence of the documents, while making
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
repeated demand for the same, the petitioner proceeded to file
his reply to the show-cause notice.
25. The Conducting Officer submitted his enquiry
report dated 2.8.2011 (Annexure-29) finding all the six
charges against the petitioner to have been proved.
26. Enclosing the copy of the enquiry report, the
petitioner was served with a notice dated 18.10.2011 asking
the petitioner to file his reply to the enquiry report within a
period of 15 days. The petitioner filed his detailed reply on
31.10.2011, once again reiterating the non-supply of the
relevant documents in absence of which he had been unable to
file a proper reply.
27. The Disciplinary Authority came out with an
order dated 11.2.2012, impunged herein inflicting the
punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner and
directing for proceeding in a certificate case for recovery of
the defalcated amount.
28. On perusal of the contents of the enquiry report,
it would transpire that in dealing with the six charges
separately, the Conducting Officer refers to various enquiry
reports, F.I.Rs etc in coming to the finding of the charges
having been proved, however this Court finds that neither any
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
witness has been examined nor any document/report marked
as an Exhibit or proved by any witness in course of enquiry.
This is cleary contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab
National Bank & Ors.; (2009) 2 SCC 570 wherein it was
held that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer
cannot be treated to be evidence in a departmental proceeding
and the same will have to be proved by examination of
witness. It was further held that mere tendering of evidence
would not be a proof of the contents thereof.
29. In addition to no witness having been examined
on behalf of the management, it would be important to take
note of the order of this Court dated 31.3.2010 quoted herein
above wherein this Court while remanding the matter to the
Enquiry Officer had given liberty to the petitioner that if so
advised, he may file a further reply pursuant to the documents
given to him by the respondents. It was further ordered that if
the petitioner is dissatisfied with the documents supplied in
context of his request dated 2.9.2005 and files any application
for more documents and satisfies the Enquiry Officer, the
same have to be supplied as otherwise the Enquiry Officer has
to record his finding of the irrelevance of the documents asked
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
for.
30. A perusal of the final report of the Enquiry
Officer not only does not deal with or mentions as to how the
documents asked for by the petitioner are irrelevant but only
states that the petitioner has been asking for documents again
and again and as far as possible the documents have been
made available. Similarly even in the order of punishment
dated 11.2.2012, the Disciplinary Authority also in conclusion
mentions about the report of the Conducting Officer wherein
he observed that the document had been made available as far
as possible.
31. Reference may be made to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh
& Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha; (2010) 2 SCC 772 wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at paragraph nos. 28, 30, 34
and 39 as follows :-
"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial
authority is in the position of an independent
adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a
representative of the department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His function is to examine
the evidence presented by the Department, even
in the absence of the delinquent official to see as
to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved. In the present
case the aforesaid procedure has not been
observed. Since no oral evidence has been
examined the documents have not been proved,
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
and could not have been taken into consideration
to conclude that the charges have been proved
against the respondents.
........... ......... ......... ......... .........
30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted
against the government servant it cannot be
treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry
proceedings also cannot be conducted with a
closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly
unbiased. The rules of natural justice are
required to be observed to ensure not only that
justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done.
The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure
that a government servant is treated fairly in
proceedings which may culminate in imposition
of punishment including dismissal/removal from
service.
........... ......... ......... ......... .........
34. This Court in Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of
India [(1986) 3 SCC 229 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 502 :
(1986) 1 ATC 176], had clearly stated the
rationale for the rule requiring supply of copies
of the documents, sought to be relied upon by the
authorities to prove the charges levelled against a
government servant. In that case the enquiry
proceedings had been challenged on the ground
that non-supply of the statements of the witnesses
and copies of the documents had resulted in the
breach of rules of natural justice. The appellant
therein had requested for supply of the copies of
the documents as well as the statements of the
witnesses at the preliminary enquiry. The request
made by the appellant was in terms turned down
by the disciplinary authority.
........... ......... ......... ......... .........
39. The proposition of law that a government
employee facing a departmental enquiry is
entitled to all the relevant statements, documents
and other materials to enable him to have a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the
departmental enquiry against the charges is too
well established to need any further reiteration.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
Nevertheless given the facts of this case we may
re-emphasise the law as stated by this Court
in State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram [(1975) 1 SCC
155 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 18] : (SCC p. 156, paras
6-8)
"6. The State contended that
the respondent was not entitled to get copies
of statements. The reasoning of the State was
that the respondent was given the
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
and during the cross-examination the
respondent would have the opportunity of
confronting the witnesses with the
statements. It is contended that the synopsis
was adequate to acquaint the respondent
with the gist of the evidence.
7. The meaning of a
reasonable opportunity of showing cause
against the action proposed to be taken is
that the government servant is afforded a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself
against charges on which inquiry is held.
The government servant should be given an
opportunity to deny his guilt and establish
his innocence. He can do so when he is told
what the charges against him are. He can do
so by cross-examining the witnesses
produced against him. The object of
supplying statements is that the government
servant will be able to refer to the previous
statements of the witnesses proposed to be
examined against the government servant.
Unless the statements are given to the
government servant he will not be able to
have an effective and useful cross-
examination.
8. It is unjust and unfair to deny the
government servant copies of statements of
witnesses examined during investigation and
produced at the inquiry in support of the
charges levelled against the government
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the
requirements of giving the government
servant a reasonable opportunity of showing
cause against the action proposed to be
taken."
32. Coming to the facts of the instant case, the first
order of dismissal passed against the petitioner on 31.3.2008
on being challenged by the petitioner in this Court in CWJC
no.17253 of 2009 was allowed by order dated 31.3.2010
mainly on the ground that the departmental proceeding was
vitiated by severe procedural irregularities with the documents
asked for by the petitioner to enable him to give an effective
reply not having been supplied to him. While setting aside the
orders of punishment of dismissal as also the order rejecting
the appeal, this Court had remanded the matter back to the
Enquiry Officer with a direction that the petitioner may file his
further reply pursuant to the documents given to him. It was
also observed in the order that if the petitioner is not satisfied
with the documents supplied and files an application for
supply of more documents, the same have to be supplied or
else the Enquiry Officer had to record his findings of the
irrelevance of the documents asked for.
33. From the facts stated herein above what
transpires is that on the petitioner asking for more documents,
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
neither the same were supplied by the Enquiry Officer to the
petitioner nor have the irrelevance of the documents been
dealt with by the Enquiry Officer in his report nor by the
Disciplinary Authority.
34. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case,
in the opinion of this Court, there has been severe procedural
irregularities and the entire departmental proceeding stands
vitiated.
35. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
order of punishment dated 11.2.2012 passed by the District
Collector, Motihari, East Champaran imposing the punishment
of dismissal from service on the petitioner is unsustainable
and is hereby set aside.
36. However, it is clarified that the departmental
proceeding have been set aside for the reasons of non-supply
of the relevant documents to enable the petitioner to give an
effective reply, so far as the direction to institute a certificate
case in the order dated 11.2.2012 of the District Collector,
Motihari, East Champaran is concerned, the same being a
completely different proceedings under the Bihar and Odissa
Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 which has led to the
initiation of proceedings of Certificate Case no.5/11-12, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21988 of 2012 dt.13-10-2025
same shall not be affected by this order and shall continue in
accordance with law.
37. The petitioner shall be entitled for arrears of
salary for the period of dismissal, however the same shall be
paid after conclusion/final decision in the proceedings of
Certificate Case no.5/11-12 and any appeal and/or revision
preferred against the order passed therein.
38. The writ application stands partly allowed to the
above extent.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/avinash
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 14.10.2025
Transmission Date
