Harish Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4182 Patna

Patna High Court

Harish Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 16 October, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Sinha

Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18590 of 2018
     ======================================================
     Harish Kumar Son of Late Sheo Kumar Singh @ Shiv Kumar Singh, Resident
     of Mohalla Chitragupta Nagar, Teachers Colony, P.S.Patrakar Nagar,
     Kankarbagh, District Patna, Presently Posted at Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya
     Azimchak, Block Sampatchak,, P.S. Gaurichak, Distirct Patna.

                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                      Versus
1.   The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of
     Education, Government of Bihar, Patna
2.   The Principal Secretary Department of Education, Government of Bihar,
     Patna.
3.   The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4.   The Regional Deputy Director Education, Patna Division, Patna.
5.   The District Education officer, Patna.
6.   The District Programe Officer, Establishment,Patna.
7.   The District Programe Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Patna
8.   The Block Education Officer, Daniyawa
9.   The Block Education Officer, Mokama-Cum-Enquiry Officer,
10. The Block Education Officer, Fatuha Cum Presenting Officer
11. The Block Education Officer, Bihar, Patna.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
                                   Mr.Krishna Chandra, Advocate
     For the Respondent/state :    Mr.Jitendra Kr.Roy-1 Sc13
                                   Mr. U.K. Singh, AC to SC 13
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
     CAV JUDGMENT
      Date :      16 -10-2025


              1. By way of the instant writ application the petitioner has

      prayed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 839 dated

      16.07.2018

passed by the Regional Deputy Director of

Education, Patna Division, Patna whereby service appeal

preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

further prayed for quashing the order of punishment contained

in Memo No. 567 dated 27.01.2018 passed by District

Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, imposing

punishment of recovery of Rs. 14,15,000/- from the salary of the

petitioner and withholding of two annual increments with

cumulative effect.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was

appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 20.06.1987 at

Middle School, Harnichak, Phulwarisharif, Patna. He was

promoted on 31.07.2010 to the post of Graduate Teacher

(Science). Consequent upon his promotion, he was transferred

from Primary School, Kali Asthan, Malsalami, Patna City to

Uttkramit Middle School, Maksoodpur, Fatuha, Patna, where he

joined on the promoted post. Subsequently, the petitioner, being

the senior-most teacher in the said school, submitted an

application dated 27.09.2010 before the Block Education

Officer, Fatuha, requesting that he should be given the charge of

Headmaster on the basis of seniority. Pursuant thereto, the

petitioner was given the charge of Headmaster and was later

given additional charge of Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya,

Fatuha, on 07.05.2011. The petitioner discharged his duties as

In-charge Headmaster of the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

from 07.05.2011 to 03.10.2012. At this juncture, learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that during the aforesaid period, the

petitioner upon taking charge of Kasturba Gandhi Balika

Vidyalaya, Fatuha found several irregularities in maintaining the

stock register, receipt of bills etc. by his predecessor and he

brought all these facts to the notice of the District Programme

Officer (Primary Education) as well as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan,

Patna through his application dated 22.10.2011 (Annexure- 1).

3. Thereafter, on one fine morning, an inspection was done

by the District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan,

Patna and pursuant to his recommendation the District

Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, put the petitioner

under suspension with immediate effect vide office order dated

29.08.2012 contained in Memo No. 6628 in contemplation of

departmental proceeding. However, on the same date, the

District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, recalled and

stayed the said order only with respect to suspension vide Memo

No. 6648.

4. Thereafter, once again, vide Office Order dated

31.10.2012 contained in Memo No. 8662 issued by the District

Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, the petitioner was

put under suspension. Subsequently, vide Office Order of the Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

same date contained in Memo No. 8663 issued under the

signature of the District Programme Officer (Establishment),

Patna, the petitioner was served with memo of charge in Form

'K' and was directed to submit his written reply within 15 days

before the Enquiry Officer. It was further directed that the

Enquiry Officer shall submit the enquiry report to the District

Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, within 30 days.

5. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer vide letter no. 31 dated

14.01.2013 asked the petitioner to file his reply and pursuant

thereto, the petitioner submitted his written reply. Thereafter,

Block Education Officer, Mokama -cum- Enquiry Officer,

submitted enquiry report vide Memo No. 110 dated 25.02.2013.

A copy of the enquiry report is annexed as Annexure- 8 to the

writ petition. On the basis of the enquiry report, the District

Programme Officer, Establishment, Patna vide Memo No. 2048

dated 02.03.2013 revoked the petitioner's suspension and posted

him to Uttkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, Azimchak, Sampat Chak,

Patna.

6. Thereafter, after a long gap of about two years, the

District Programme Officer issued a second show-cause notice

vide letter no. 1772 dated 25.02.2015 wherein the allegation of

defalcation of Rs. 5,16,500/- in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

Vidyalaya, Fatuha was alleged against the petitioner and he was

asked to submit his reply within 30 days. In view of the

aforesaid, the petitioner submitted his reply denying all charges,

especially the allegation of defalcation and also requested the

authorities to get the audit of account done. In order to verify

the correctness of the petitioner's explanation, the District

Education Officer, Patna, vide Memo No. 141 dated 07.01.2016,

constituted a three member committee under the Chairmanship

of the Block Education Officer, Daniyawan along with the

Accounts Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and Accountant,

Masaurhi to examine the records and submit its findings. The

three-member committee submitted its report vide letter no. 120

dated 15.03.2016 wherein it was observed that the allegations

appears to be true but as per report of the committee the alleged

defalcation amount came to Rs. 17,67,000/- which was contrary

to the earlier finding which was Rs. 5,16,500/- .Thereafter, vide

letter no. 3713 dated 25.05.2016 a second show-cause notice

was issued to the petitioner by District Programme Officer,

Establishment, Patna asking him to submit his reply within 30

days to which the petitioner submitted his reply dated

31.05.2016 denying the allegations and reiterating his earlier

defence.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

7. Again, the District Programme Officer (Establishment),

Patna, vide Office Order contained in Memo No. 5740 dated

24.08.2016 placed the petitioner under suspension and

re-initiated departmental proceeding by appointing Sri Ramesh

Chandra, Programme Officer, Mid-Day-Meal Programme, Patna

as Enquiry Officer and the Block Education Officer, Fatuha, as

Presenting Officer, who had earlier also functioned as the

Enquiry Officer whereafter District Programme Officer

(Establishment), Patna, again issued a supplementary memo of

charge in Form 'K' dated 23.08.2016 to which the petitioner

submitted his reply on 18.10.2016 furnishing complete details of

accounts along with supporting documents in defence of the

said charges.

8. The second Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry

report vide letter no. 747 dated 16.03.2017 to the District

Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna. Vide letter no. 3460

dated 27.04.2017 a second show-cause notice was issued again

to the petitioner under the signature of the District Programme

Officer (Establishment), Patna stating therein that the Enquiry

Officer has submitted his enquiry report in which all allegations

were found to be true and he was asked to file his reply within 7

days without enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. In reply to Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

the same, the petitioner requested and sought supply of certain

documents essential for submitting an appropriate reply by

application dated 05.05.2017.

9. When, even after a lapse of about six months from the

date of submission of the said enquiry report, no final order was

passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner filed an

application dated 07.08.2017 before the District Programme

Officer (Establishment), Patna, requesting revocation of the

order of suspension during the pendency of departmental

proceeding. Thereafter, after a lapse of more than ten months

from the date of submission of enquiry report, the District

Programme Officer (Establishment) passed order of punishment

contained in Memo No. 567 dated 27.01.2018, directing

recovery of Rs.14,15,000/- at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month

from the petitioner's salary and also ordered withholding of two

increments with cumulative effect (Annexure- 22). Being

aggrieved by the order of punishment contained in Memo No.

567 dated 27.01.2018 the petitioner preferred an appeal before

the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division.

However, the said appeal was rejected vide order contained in

Memo No. 523 dated 13.04.2018 merely on the ground that the

writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 11287 of 2016 filed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

petitioner was pending before this Court.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture

informed this Court about the background in which C.W.J.C.

No. 11287 of 2016 was filed and submits that immediately after

submission of the report by the three-member committee

suggesting alleged defalcation of Rs.14,15,000/-, the District

Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, vide his Office

Order contained in Memo No. 4315 dated 13.06.2016 had

directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount within fifteen

days. Against this direction, the petitioner had preferred the writ

application being C.W.J.C. No. 11287 of 2016 before this Court.

The aforesaid writ petition was heard on 24.04.2018 and was

disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh

representation along with a copy of the order before the

Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, for

re-hearing of the appeal on its own merit within a period of one

month from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the

order. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the petitioner filed a

detailed memo of appeal dated 07.05.2018 annexing all the

relevant documents in support of his defence against the

levelled charges. The appeal of the petitioner was arbitrarily

rejected without assigning any reason.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

11. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that there is procedural and substantive defect

in holding departmental proceeding inasmuch as no oral enquiry

was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and neither any date was

fixed for hearing in the departmental proceeding nor any

witnesses were examined in order to bring home the charges.

The Presenting Officer did not produce any documentary

evidence or oral witness in support of the charges. The Enquiry

Officer without adhering to the procedure laid down under Rule

17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control &

Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for short 'Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005')

submitted his enquiry report vide letter no. 747 dated

16.03.2017. The copy of the enquiry report was never served

upon the petitioner. The service appeal preferred by the

petitioner was dismissed without appreciating the documents

brought on record by the petitioner and ignoring the fact that

neither any documentary evidence was exhibited nor any

witness was produced by the Presenting Officer during course

of enquiry and this was a case of no evidence. That non-

application of mind by the Appellate Authority is further evident

from the fact that even payment of salary through bank accounts

to teachers and staffs was not taken into consideration. During Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

the entire period when the petitioner was holding the post of

Headmaster -cum- Incharge, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya,

there was no complaint whatsoever from any teacher or staff

regarding non-payment of salary. This fact itself falsifies the

allegations and findings recorded in the order under challenge.

12. Learned counsel further submits that in exercise of

powers conferred under Rule 31 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules,

2005 the Government of Bihar has framed Bihar Framing of

Articles of Charge Against Government Servants Regulations,

2011. A plain reading of the said Regulation makes it clear that

where a government servant is proceeded against

departmentally, the disciplinary authority is required to draw up

definite and distinct articles of charges supported by a statement

of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour together with a list

of documents and witnesses proposed to sustain the charges.

However, in the present case, although Form 'K' was issued to

the petitioner, the same was done mechanically and without

material basis and the petitioner was not provided with the list

of documents and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of

charge are proposed to be sustained. The article of charges were

vague and non -specific.

13. He next argued that despite statutory obligation upon Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

both the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer to

substantiate the charges by producing witnesses and material

documents, in the instant case, no such evidence was ever

produced. The petitioner had, in fact, identified specific

documents which could have established his innocence but the

same were never examined or called for.

14. The Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 prescribes a detailed

procedure under Rule 17 for imposing major penalties. From a

plain reading of Rule 17(5)(c) it is clear that it is mandatory that

a Presenting Officer be appointed to present the departmental

case and Rule 17(11) read with Rule 17(14) mandates that the

Presenting Officer must produce oral and documentary evidence

in support of the article of charges and examine the witnesses

concerned. From perusal of the Rule, it is clear that the word

"shall" is used, which denotes a mandatory obligation. Hence,

the production of oral and documentary evidence by the

Presenting Officer is not discretionary but a statutory

requirement under the Rule which has not been followed in the

present case.

15. He further submits that Enquiry Officer acts as an

independent quasi-judicial authority and not as a representative

of the Department. The law, therefore, requires that the Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

Presenting Officer presents the Department's case, while the

Enquiry Officer remains neutral and independent ajudicator, but

in the present case, despite appointment of a Presenting Officer,

the Enquiry Officer acted on his own bye- passing the

mandatory provisions of Rule 17. Accordingly, submission is

that non-production of oral or documentary evidence by the

Presenting Officer and the pre-determined and biased approach

of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has been prejudiced at

every stage of the proceeding. The findings recorded against the

petitioner are thus based on no evidence and the entire

proceeding amounts to a farce having been conducted in

flagrant violation of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 and the

principles of natural justice.

16. It has further been submitted that first departmental

proceeding had already been initiated against the petitioner,

pursuant to which the Enquiry Officer had submitted his enquiry

report before the Disciplinary Authority. However, without

completing the said proceeding and without recording any

reasons on the findings of the first enquiry report, the

respondents authorities proceeded to initiate another

departmental proceeding on the same set of allegations. If the

Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the findings of the Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

first enquiry report, it was incumbent upon him to record his

disagreement with the findings and remit the matter for further

enquiry as contemplated under Rule 18(1) of the Bihar C.C.A.

Rules, 2005. Upon such remittance, the Enquiry Officer was

required to proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed

under Rule 17. However, in the present case, none of the

prescribed procedures has been followed. The Disciplinary

Authority, instead of exercising his powers under Rule 18(1),

arbitrarily initiated a fresh departmental proceeding, which is

wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. Lastly, it has

been submitted that entire sequence of actions from issuance of

repetitive charge memos based on same allegations, constitution

of multiple enquiry committees, constitution of a 3-member

committee behind the back of the petitioner, non-supply of

enquiry report, list of documents and evidences enhancement of

the alleged defalcation amount without basis and continuous

suspension clearly establishes a mala fide, arbitrary, and

vindictive approach adopted by the respondent authorities

against the petitioner.

17. Per contra, learned counsel for the State argued that the

petitioner was suspended for committing irregularities in the

operation and management of the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

Vidyalaya, Fatuha. While he was made In-charge Headmaster of

that school, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the

petitioner; charges were framed and enquiry report was

submitted with finding that petitioner had misappropriated

government funds amounting to Rs. 5,16,500/-. It was on the

request of the petitioner for re-verification of the records,

vouchers of expenditure incurred in operating the school, a

three member committee was constituted by the District

Education Officer. The committee submitted its report with

finding that there was fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 14,15,000/-

on the basis of fake vouchers and recommended recovery of the

said amount.

18. Thereafter, supplementary charges were framed and

the petitioner was again put under suspension. The Enquiry

Officer was again appointed who submitted his report on

16.03.2017 holding the charges proved. The petitioner was

served with a second show-cause notice by the disciplinary

authority but he failed to furnish any satisfactory reply or

evidence.

19. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority, after due

consideration, passed the punishment order of recovery and

withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

The Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the

appellate authority. The departmental proceeding was conducted

as per law and there is no procedural lapses in conducting the

departmental enquiry.

20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

gone through the material on record including the impugned

order of punishment and the appellate order.

21. From perusal of the records it appears that the

petitioner, while serving as a Graduate Teacher (Science) and

functioning as In-Charge Headmaster-cum-Sanchalak of

Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Fatuha, was initially placed

under suspension on 29.08.2012 and was served with a Memo

of Charge dated 31.10.2012 containing six allegations, namely:

(1) irregularity in food quality of students; (2) diversion of government funds;

(3) negligence of duty;

(4) improper maintenance of cash register; (5) indifference towards the future of girl students; and (6) non-payment of honorarium to part-time teachers.

22. However, a bare perusal of the said memo of charge

reveals that no list of documents nor list of witnesses proposed

to prove the said charges was annexed thereto, which is

violation of the statutory mandate of Rule 17(6) of the Bihar Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

C.C.A. Rules, 2005.

23. The Enquiry Officer, namely the Block Education

Officer, Mokama, submitted his report dated 25.01.2013,

wherein the first and sixth charges were found not proved, while

charges two to five were held "proved." Notably, there is no

mention anywhere in the said report that the Enquiry Officer

had fixed any date of hearing for holding enquiry and the

Presenting Officer had adduced any oral or documentary

evidence in support of the allegations or that any witness was

examined in presence of the petitioner.

24. The findings of the Enquiry Officer rests merely on the

subjective satisfaction of the Enquiry Officer without any

supporting material. From perusal of the enquiry report it

appears that the Enquiry Officer has arrived at the finding on the

basis of consultation made with the Department Officers, the

records of the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Viyalaya unilaterally

and the explanation upon the charges submitted by the

petitioner. All these were done behind the back of the petitioner

and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the

evidence collected by the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary

authority instead of either accepting or disagreeing with the

findings in accordance with Rule 18 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

2005, proceeded to constitute a new three member committee

and subsequently directed for initiation of fresh proceeding.

Again a memo of charge dated 24.08.2016 bearing memo no.

5740 was served upon the petitioner.

25. At this juncture, the judgment of Division Bench of

this Court passed in LPA No. 1653 of 2016 shall be relevant. In

paragraph no. 2 of the judgment of the Division Bench it has

been observed that:-

"02. Perusal of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, it is evident that the disciplinary authority has no power to amend the charge at the stage of consideration of inquiring officer's report / finding. The disciplinary authority had option of either accepting or rejecting the finding of the Inquiring Officer's report or in the event of disagreeing with the inquiry officer report or finding. In that event disciplinary authority has option of issuing of show cause notice to the concerned person to the extent of disagreeing with the inquiring officer's report or finding and he had option of remanding the matter to the inquiring authority to commence the inquiry from the defective stage and complete the process of inquiry or he / she can complete the inquiry. On the other hand, in the present case disciplinary authority proceeded to amend the charge and ordering fresh inquiry. Such procedure is not in consonance to the law for the Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

reason that Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules, 2005 do not provide for such procedure. In fact, the petitioner in para 25 and 56 of the writ petition has specifically contended that ordering fresh inquiry is bad in law."

26. In this context, the judgment of this Court reported in

2021(2) BLJ 117 Ashok Kumar versus The State of Bihar &

Ors. is also relevant. In paragraph no. 9 of the same this Court

has held as follows:-

"9. No provision under the Rules contemplates a second departmental inquiry. In case, a disciplinary authority notices any serious defect having crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses could not be examined because of their nonavailability, he could have remitted the matter back to the Enquiring Authority for further inquiry as contemplated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the Rules."

27. The second memo of charge too contains six

allegation - (1) embezzlement of Rs. 14,15,000/- , (2) fraud and

cheating with the department, (3) hindrance in students'

education (4) negligence of duty, (5) indifference towards the

students' future, and (6) violation of conduct rules.

28. Except for the first charge regarding the alleged

defalcation, the remaining five charges are vague, indefinite, Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

and bereft of particulars. Further, this memo of charge also does

not disclose any list of witnesses or documents relied upon,

which is contrary to the Rules, thereby depriving the petitioner

of a fair opportunity to defend himself.

29. The record further indicates that the Presenting Officer,

despite being appointed, did not produce any evidence or

examine any witness in the course of the enquiry. The date of

enquiry was never fixed. The Enquiry Officer submitted the

enquiry report and relied solely upon certain documents

allegedly produced by the department but admittedly never

supplied to the petitioner and no opportunity of inspection or

cross-examination was afforded to the petitioner. No oral

witness was also produced by the Presenting Officer during the

course of enquiry. Such an enquiry, therefore, was conducted in

flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the

statutory scheme contemplated under Rule 17 of the Bihar

C.C.A. Rules, 2005.

30. It is a settled proposition of law that an Enquiry

Officer acts as a quasi-judicial authority and not as a

representative of the department. The role of the Presenting

Officer is distinct to lead evidence in support of the charges and

produce witnesses for examination. The Enquiry Officer cannot Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

himself assume the dual role of prosecutor and judge.

31. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. Presiding

Officer reported in AIR 1985 SC 1121 in which the Supreme

Court has held that an enquiry report with regard to a

departmental enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer should

not be based on the ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer. It should

show as to what are the charges levelled against the petitioner,

how the departmental enquiry was conducted, what was the

evidence that came on record, it should show analysis of the

evidence and conclusion of the Enquiry Officer based on reason

to show that the evidence that came before the Enquiry Officer

was analyzed in the backdrop of the explanation submitted by

the petitioner and he holds the delinquent employee guilty of the

charges levelled against him. If the report of the Enquiry Officer

does not meet the aforesaid requirement of law, it is a total

violation of the principles of natural justice and based upon such

enquiry report, no punishment can be imposed upon a

delinquent employee.

32. Paragraph no. 5 & 6 of the Anil Kumar (Supra) is

quoted hereinbelow:-

5. .... It is well-settled that a disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi-judicial enquiry held according to the Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer has a duty to act judicially. The Enquiry Officer did not apply his mind to the evidence. Save setting out the names of the witnesses, he did not discuss the evidence. He merely recorded his ipse dixit that the charges are proved. He did not assign a single reason why the evidence produced by the appellant did not appeal to him or was considered not creditworthy. He did not permit a peep into his mind as to why the evidence produced by the management appealed to him in preference to the evidence produced by the appellant. An enquiry report in a quasi-judicial enquiry must show the reasons for the conclusion. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer. It has to be a speaking order in the sense that the conclusion is supported by reasons. This is too well settled to be supported by a precedent. In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR 1966 SC 671 : (1966) 1 SCR 466 : (1966) 1 SCJ 204] this Court observed that a speaking order will at best be a reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard. Similarly in Mahabir Prasad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1966 SC 671 : (1971) 1 SCR 201] this Court reiterated that satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appealed to the authority. It should all the more be so where the quasi-judicial enquiry may result in deprivation of livelihood or attach a stigma to the character. In this case the enquiry report is an order sheet which merely produces the stage through which the enquiry passed. It clearly disclosed a total non-application of mind and it is this report on which the General Manager acted in terminating the service of the appellant. There Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

could not have been a more gross case of non-application of mind and it is such an enquiry which has found favour with the Labour Court and the High Court.

6. Where a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed to an order sheet and no correlation is established between the two showing application of mind, we are constrained to observe that it is not an enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was no enquiry in this case worth the name and the order of termination based on such proceeding disclosing non-application of mind would be unsustainable."

33. The entire enquiry proceeding was held in gross

violation of statutory provision, procedural violation and

principles of natural justice on the following reasons:-

1. Absence of list of documents and witnesses with the charge memo;

2. No oral or documentary evidence produced by the Presenting Officer;

3. No opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioner;

4. No independent assessment of evidence by the Enquiry Officer;

5. Vague and repetitive charges not based on definite acts of misconduct.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

6. Multiple parallel proceedings initiated successively, without concluding the first enquiry;

34. In another judgment of this Court in the case of in

S.K. Verma versus The State of Bihar reported in 2000(1) PLJR

116 in paragraph no. 16 it has been held as follows:-

"In view of the fact that during the inquiry no

witness was examined, this Court holds that the

charges against the petitioner cannot be said to have

been proved. It is a well known principle that at the

stage of inquiry the petitioner is entitled to be given a

reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses

who are produced to prove the charges. The petitioner

also has a right to adduce evidence by producing

witness. It is well known that at this stage provision of

the Indian Evidence Act does not apply. But, the

substantial principles of Evidence Act are to be

observed in a departmental enquiry also."

35. Coming back again to the facts of the present case, I

find that the Presenting Officer during course of enquiry did not

produce oral evidence or any documentary evidence in presence

of the delinquent-petitioner to prove the charges by examining

the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer in such circumstances has Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

grossly erred by arrogating this role upon himself to prove the

charges by collecting documents from the department files,

analyzing explanation submitted by the petitioner as well as the

Presenting Officer.

36. From perusal of the memo of charge it is clear that the

memo of charge does not contain list of documents and

witnesses by which the Department proposes to prove / sustain

the article of charges. Accordingly, on this ground alone the

departmental inquiry has vitiated.

37. Considering the conspectus of facts and the law

discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that enquiry

has vitiated on the ground that along with the memo of charge

the list of documents and witnesses by which the article of

charges were proposed to be proved / sustained were not

provided to the petitioner as required under Rule 17(3) of the

Bihar C.C.A. Rules 2005. Accordingly, the memo of charge is

hereby quashed.

38. During the course of enquiry no oral witness /

evidence was examined, documents were produced behind the

back of the petitioner by the Presenting Officer and the same

were not proved during the course of enquiry in presence of the

petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18590 of 2018 dt.16-10-2025

39. Accordingly, in my opinion the enquiry has also

vitiated and the Enquiry Officer has failed to discharge his

duties as an independent adjudicator.

40. Resultantly, I hold that the charges against the

petitioner cannot be said to have been proved. In the result, the

order of punishment dated 27.01.2018 and the appellate order

16.07.2018 are hereby quashed.

41. Since this Court has quashed the memo of charge, the

enquiry report, the order of punishment and consequential order

of appeal passed by Regional Deputy Director of Education,

Patna Division the petitioner is entitled to be paid all

consequential benefit including monetary benefit and refund of

amount which has been realized, if any, pursuant to the order of

punishment. I order accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                23-09-2025
Uploading Date          16-10-2025
Transmission Date       NA