Neera Verma vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4233 Patna

Patna High Court

Neera Verma vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 30 October, 2025

Author: Partha Sarthy

Bench: Partha Sarthy

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15731 of 2013
     ======================================================
1.1. Nikunj Shekhar Son of Sri Shashi Kumar, Resident of C/201, Krishna
     Building, Vasant Sagar, Thakur Village, P.S. Thakur Village, P.S. Thakur
     Village, Mumbai (Maharashtra).
1.2. Nitin Shekhar Son of Sri Shashi Kumar, Resident of C//201, Krishna
     Building, Vasant Sagar, Thakur Village, P.S. Thakur Village, Mumbai
     (Maharashtra).

                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.   The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Biada , Udyog Bhawan,
     East Gandhi Maidan, Patna -
3.   The Managing Director - Cum - Disciplinary Authority, Bihar Industrial
     Area Development Authority,
4.   The Secretary, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Udhyog
     Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna
5.   The Executive Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority,
     Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maid

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
                                   Mr. Mohit Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
                                   Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
                                   Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :      Ms. Vinita Singh, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 30-10-2025

               1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

      learned counsel for the respondents - BIADA.

               2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ application

      praying for the following reliefs:
 Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2013 dt.30-10-2025
                                           2/14




                                         "(i) For issuance of a writ in the
                            nature of certiorari for quashing of the order
                            dated 09.04.2013 passed in Appeal Case No. 01
                            of 2012 under the signature of the Respondent
                            Industry Development Commissioner whereby
                            the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the
                            order of termination of her service has been
                            dismissed without assigning any cogent reason
                            and without application of judicial mind.
                            (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
                            certiorari for quashing of the Order dt.
                            10.5.2011

issued vide Memo No.: 2211/Astha.

under the signature of the Respondent Managing Director, BIADA whereby the Petitioner has been dismissed from the services of BIADA as being wholly arbitrary & illegal;

(iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent BIADA & its authorities to reinstate the Petitioner in the service and also to make payment of the entire arrears of salary & & other dues since long without any reasonable cause;

(iv) For issuance of a writ in the nature of declaration that the entire disciplinary proceeding initiated against the Petitioner & impugned order of dismissal as an outcome of the said proceeding deserve to be quashed by this Hon'ble High Court in the light & in terms of the Order dt. 17.4.2009 passed by this Hon'ble High Court in CWJC No.: 11877/2007 whereby Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2013 dt.30-10-2025

& whereunder, time frame of four months was provided for conclusion of the proceedings as the Respondent BIADA & its authorities traveled much beyond the period of four months despite all cooperation by the Petitioner; &

(v) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to make payment of the arrears of salary & other dues payable to the Petitioner since long which have been denied illegally, arbitrarily and in direct contradiction to the Order dt. 17.4.2009 of this Hon'ble Court passed in CWJC No.: 11877/2007 as also for payment of the salary & other dues for the period of suspension; and for any other relief[s] for which the Petitioner may legally be found entitled to in the facts & circumstances of the present case."

3. The original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as

the 'petitioner') having died during the pendency of this

application, was substituted by her legal heirs vide order

dated 28.10.2025. On account of the death of the petitioner,

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not

pressing the prayers made in paragraph nos. 1 (iii) of the

writ application.

4. The case of the petitioner in brief in brief is that he

was appointed on the post of Assistant in the respondent- Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2013 dt.30-10-2025

Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter

referred to as 'BIADA'), in the year 1977. On the allegation

of having remained unauthorizedly absent from duty, the

petitioner was proceeded against in the departmental

proceeding and was served with a memo of charges on

18.5.2007 containing various allegations.

5. The said memo of charge etc. were challenged by

the petitioner before this Court in CWJC no. 11877 of 2007,

which was allowed by order dated 17.4.2009. The order of

punishment was held to be completely vitiated, the same

was accordingly set aside and liberty was granted to the

respondents to proceed in accordance with law, however,

with a direction that the same shall be concluded within a

maximum period of four months.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant thereto,

the petitioner was served with a copy of the memo of

charges on 6.8.2009 to which she submitted her reply on

19.8.2009. The Conducting Officer thereafter proceeded to

submit his inquiry report on 03.11.2009 and a copy of the

inquiry report was provided to the petitioner to which she Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2013 dt.30-10-2025

filed her reply. The respondent authorities came out with the

order dated 10.5.2011 under the signature of the Managing

Director, BIADA dismissing the petitioner from service

with immediate effect.

7. It further transpires that the petitioner moved this

Court challenging the order of dismissal by filing CWJC no.

15238 of 2011. Taking into consideration that the appeal

filed by the petitioner was pending before the Appellate

Authority, the said writ application was withdrawn on

4.1.2012 with the Court observing that the Appellate

Authority shall dispose of the appeal within a period of

three months. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was

rejected vide order dated 9.4.2013 passed by the Chairman,

BIADA.

8. It is against this order of dismissal dated

10.05.2011 and the order rejecting the appeal dated

9.4.2013 that the instant application has been filed.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the

petitioner, an Assistant in BIADA, on the ground of her Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2013 dt.30-10-2025

unauthorized absence from duty on various dates. In

reference to the materials on record, it is stated that the

defence of the petitioner was that her son had met with an

accident in Mumbai which compelled her to proceed to

Mumbai and for this reason she could not resume her duties

within the leave granted. She further states that the same

was followed by the illness of her mother-in-law.

10. Without going the details of the defence, learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that at each stage,

application with supporting documents had been sent to the

respondent-BIADA praying for extension of leave which is

also taken note of by the Enquiry Officer and it is not

denied that no final orders were passed on the application

for extension filed by the petitioner.

11. It is further submitted in reference to the inquiry

report that no witness was examined and as such no document

was exhibited or proved in course of enquiry in support of the

charges levelled against the petitioner. It is thus submitted that

the instant case is fit to be allowed on this ground alone. In

support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2013 dt.30-10-2025

Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and Ors.; (2009) 2

SCC 570.

12. In response, it is submitted by the learned counsel for

the respondent- BIADA, that it is not in dispute that the

petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent for a period

much beyond the leave granted to her. So far as the

grounds/reasons for her absence is concerned, the merits thereof

cannot be examined by this Court. It is submitted that no

document substantiating her application for extension of leave

was enclosed with her application. The documents in support

were only produced by the petitioner in the departmental

proceeding before the Inquiry Officer. The learned counsel

further refers to a statement made in paragraph no. 12 of the

counter-affidavit to submit that during the course of the inquiry,

the parties were given full opportunity to put forward their

respective cases and evidences. The reply filed by the petitioner

was considered and her application to be represented by a

counsel in the inquiry before the Inquiry Official was also

allowed. Time was given to both the sides to produce evidence

in support of their case. Written arguments were filed by both

the sides and it is taking into consideration the contents of all

the materials on record including the copy of the inquiry report Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2013 dt.30-10-2025

that the Managing Director of BIADA came to the conclusion

that the charge of unauthorized absence of the petitioner without

having filed any leave application and without leave having

been sanctioned was proved. It is thus submitted that the charges

having been proved in accordance with law, the order of

punishment dismissing the petitioner from service of BIADA is

proper and has been passed in accordance with law. The order

passed by the appellate authority has also considered the

grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner. There is no merit in

the writ application filed by the petitioner and as such the same

be dismissed.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material on record.

14. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner while

posted as an Assistant in BIADA was proceeded against in a

departmental proceeding on account of having remained absent

for the period beyond the leave sanctioned. He was served with

the charge sheet which contained the following charges asking

her to submit her reply within a period of 15 days. Charges are

reproduced here in below for any reference:

"vkjksi la[;k&1- vuqPNsn&I% Jhefr uhjk oekZ] lgkf;dk fnukad 19-06-06 ls Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2013 dt.30-10-2025

21-06-06 rd vkdfLed vodk"k ysdj x;h vkSj viuh ethZ ls fnukad 26-06-06 rd cuk lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr jghaA vuqPNsn&II% Jhefr uhjk oekZ fnukad 12-09-06 ls 30-10-06 rd mikftZr vodk"k dk vkosnu nsdj vuqifLFkr jghaA vuqPNsn&III% Jhefr uhjk oekZ fnukad 28-11-06 rd vodk"k foLrkj gsrq vkosnu fnukad 30-10-06 nsdj vuqifLFkr jghaA vuqPNsn&IV% Jhefr uhjk oekZ iqu% fnukad 15-01-2007 rd vodk"k vof/k ds foLrkj gsrq vkosnu fnukad 23-11-06 nsdj vuqifLFkr jghaA vuqPNsn&V% Jhefr oekZ }kjk fnukad 06-02-07 dks ;ksxnku fn;k x;kA bl izdkj Jhefr oekZ fnukad 19-06- 06 ls fnukad 26-06-06 rd rFkk fnukad 12-09- 06 ls fnukad 05-02-07 rd fcuk vodk"k Lohd`r djk;s dk;kZy; ls vuqifLFkr jghaA vuqPNsn&VI : Jhefr oekZ }kjk fnukad 03-04-2007 ls fnukad 21-04-2007 rd vodk"k Lohd`fr dk vkosnu nsdj vukf/kd`r :i ls vodk"k dk miHkksx fd;k x;kA vuqPNsn&VII : Jhefr oekZ fnukad 03-04-2007 ls 21-04-07 rd dh vukf/kd`r vodk"k es jgus ds dkj.k fc;kMk iVuk ds Kkikad 782@LFkk0 fnukad 25-04-07 ds }kjk Li'Vhdj.k iwNk x;k ,oa mDr Li'Vhdj.k esa iwoZ esa Jhefr oekZ }kjk vukf/kd`r :i ls dk;kZy; ls vuqifLFkr jgus dk Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA vkjksi la[;k&2- vuqPNsn& I : Jhefr oekZ ls Kkikad 764@LFkk0 fnukad 24-04-07 ds }kjk fnukad 24-04-07 dks fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr ik;s tkus ds dkj.k Li'Vhdj.k dh ekax dh xbZ ,oa ,d fnu dk osru vo:) djus dk vkns"k fn;k x;kA vuqPNsn& II : dkfEkZdksa ds chp dk;Z forj.k lacaf/kr vkns"k Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2013 dt.30-10-2025

Kkikad 760@LFkk0 fnukad 24-04-07] Li'Vhdj.k vkns"k Kkikad 764&LFkk0 fnukad 24-04-07 ,oa Li'Vhdj.k laca/kh Kkikad 782@LFkk0 fnukad 25-04-07 vkids }kjk ugha fy;k x;kA pwafd vki dk;kZy; ls yxkrkj fcuk vuqefr ds vuqifLFkr jghaA Mkd& forjd }kjk bl vk"k; dh fyf[kr lwpuk Hkh nh x;h gSA bl izdkj Jhefr oekZ ds }kjk dk;Z ds izfr vufHk:fp] euekuh ,oa vkns"k ds vuqikyu esa vuq"kklughurk cjkcj cjrh tkrh jgh gSA vuqPNsn& III : Jhefr oekZ ds }kjk enj&bu ykW dh rch;r dh [kjkch dk mYys[k djrs gq, fnukad 31-05-07 rd vof/k ds foLrkj dk vkosnu fn;k x;k tks fnukad 26-04-07 dks dk;kZy; dks izkIr gqvkA vkjksi la[;k&3- vuqPNsn& I : Jhefr oekZ ds }kjk yxkrkj tku&cw>dj dk;kZy; ls vuqifLFkr jgus] vkns"kksa dh vogsyuk djus ,oa euekuh cjrus ds dkj.k vafre :i ls rhu fnuksa ds vanj Li'Vhdj.k nsus gsrq nSfud lekpkj ^fgUnqLrku* esa fnukad 06-05-07 dks lwpuk izdkf"kr djk;k x;kA ¼vuqyXud½ vuqPNsn& II : Li'Vhdj.k ds tokc esa Jhefr oekZ }kjk fnukad 08-05-07 lklw&ekWa dh rch;r [kjkc ¼fpfdRld iphZ dh Nk;k izfr layXu½ gksus dh lwpuk nh x;h dh lklw&ekWa dh rfc;r esa lq/kkj gksxk] eSa viuk ;ksxnku dk;kZy; esa ns nwxhA rF;ksa ls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd Jhefr oekZ vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr jgh gSa] tks lsok fu;ekoyh ds fo:) gSA ;g dkjZokbZ Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2013 dt.30-10-2025

Jhefr oekZ ds euekuhiu ,oa LoPNUnrk dk |ksrd gSA "

15. As directed the petitioner filed his reply on 19.8.2009

on which the conducting officer submitted his inquiry report on

3.11.2009. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

in reference to the inquiry report that not a single witness has

been examined on behalf of respondents-BIADA to prove the

charges leveled against the petitioner in the departmental

proceeding. Consequently, neither any document was exhibited

nor proved by any person. It transpires from the perusal of the

inquiry report that so far as the Inquiry Officer is concerned,

having gone through the memo of charges and the documents

available on record, though not exhibited, has taken the contents

of the said document and treated the same to have been proved.

16. Without going into the details of the merits of the case

of the parties with respect to the specific charges it may be

observed here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Roop Singh Negi Supra (supra) held as follows:

"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2013 dt.30-10-2025

consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence."

17. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Devendra Prasad versus State of Bihar and others, in it's

judgment dated 19.10.2023 passed in LPA no. 1302 of 2017,

following Roop Singh Negi (supra), observed as follows:

"7. As has been held in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others; (2009) 2 SCC 570, the documents produced in a departmental inquiry has to be proved by examining witnesses. Even an F.I.R. was held to be not evidence by itself without actual proof of facts stated therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also held that even an admission or confession to the police itself is not sufficient to find the delinquent employee guilty in a departmental proceeding if no evidence is brought on record to prove the offence or misconduct alleged. Departmental inquiry was held to be a Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2013 dt.30-10-2025

quasi-judicial proceeding and the Inquiry Officer functions in the status of a quasi-judicial authority.

Not only should evidence be led in a departmental inquiry, the conclusions arrived at should be based on evidence which brings forth a probability that the delinquent has committed the misconduct alleged and charged against him. No Inquiry Report based on conjectures and surmises can be sustained and even in a departmental inquiry, the standard of proof is not a mere suspicion. However high the degree of suspicion is, it cannot be a substitute for legal proof."

18. On perusal of the judgments referred to herein above

it transpires that in a departmental inquiry the documents

produced have to be proved by examining witnesses. In the case

of Roop Singh Negi (supra) it was held that even an FIR was

not evidence by itself without actual proof of the facts stated

therein. So far as the instant case is concerned, there is no

dispute with respect to the fact that in course of inquiry not a

single witness has been examined and thus no evidence is lead

to prove any documents in support of the allegations/charges

leveled against the petitioner. Thus in the facts of the case the

charges leveled against the petitioner cannot be held to be

proved. Consequently the order of punishment cannot be

sustained. As such the order of dismissal dated 10.5.2011 passed Patna High Court CWJC No.15731 of 2013 dt.30-10-2025

by the Managing Director as also the order dated 9.4.2013 of the

Chairman, BIADA rejecting the appeal preferred by the

petitioner is not sustainable and fit to be quashed.

19. In the facts and circumstances of the case the order

impugned contained in memo no. 2211/Astha dated 10.5.2011

passed by the Managing Director, BIADA and the order dated

9.2.2013 in Appeal Case no. 1 of 2012 passed by the Chairman

BIADA, Patna are both set aside.

20. The writ application is allowed with all consequential

benefits.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          4.11.2025
Transmission Date