Lakshuman Tiwary vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 252 Patna

Patna High Court

Lakshuman Tiwary vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 2 February, 2026

Author: Partha Sarthy

Bench: Partha Sarthy

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2729 of 2017
     ======================================================
1.1. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari Son of Late Lakshuman Tiwary, Resident of
      Biscoman Colony, Dhanuki, P.S. Alamganj, Patna.
1.2. Amitabh Tiwari S.o Late Lakshuman Tiwary, Resident of Biscoman Colony,
     Dhanuki, P.S. Alamganj, Patna.

                                                                ... ... Petitioner.s
                                        Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.   The Principal Secretary- Cum- Appellate Authority, Department of
     Registration Excise and Prohibit
3.   Secretary-Cum- Inspector- General, Registration, Government of Bihar,
     Patna
4.   Inspector of Registration Offices, Patna Division, Patna

                                               ... ... Respondent.s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioners    :      Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
                                   Mr. Kamala Kant Tiwary, Advocate
     For the Respondents    :      Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha. GA-1
                                   Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC 11
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
     ORAL JUDGMENT

      Date : 02.02.2026

                       Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

      learned counsel for the respondents.

                       2. The original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as

      'the petitioner') filed the instant application challenging the

      order dated 30.5.2014 issued under the signature of the

      Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna whereby in a

      proceeding conducted against the petitioner, it was ordered that

      50% of the pension payable to the petitioner would be forfeited.

      Further, prayer has been made for quashing the order dated
 Patna High Court CWJC No.2729 of 2017 dt.02.02.2026
                                            2/7




         26.8.2014

of the Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, whereby

the order of punishment was reduced from forfeiture of 50% of

the pension to forfeiture of 25% of the pension. The petitioner

has also challenged the letter dated 5.10.2016 of the IG,

Registration, Bihar and the letter dated 7.12.2016 of the

Assistant IG, Registration, Bihar whereby the order of

punishment has been communicated to the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that in the

year 2007 he was falsely implicated in Vigilance P.S.Case no. 79

of 2007 registered under the sections 419, 420 and 120B of the

Indian Penal Code read with sections 7,8, 12, 13(1)(a)(b) and

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case went for

trial vide Special Case no. 50 of 2007 and the same ended in

acquittal of the petitioner, vide judgment dated 30.7.2016 passed

by the learned Special Judge Vigilance 1st, Patna.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner was proceeded against for the

charges similar to the allegations levelled against the petitioner

in the vigilance case. He was served with memo of charge dated

16.5.2008 in Prapatra- Ka to which he filed his reply. The

inquiry proceeded and the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry

report dated 30.12.2008.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2729 of 2017 dt.02.02.2026

5. The respondents authorities differing with the

contents of the inquiry report issued a show cause notice to the

petitioner on 26.3.2014 to which the petitioner submitted his

reply.

6. In the meantime, the petitioner having retired

from service on 31.1.2014, the proceedings were converted into

a proceeding under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules.

7. The respondents came out with an order of

punishment dated 30.5.2014 forfeiting 50% of the pension of

the petitioner. On an appeal having been filed by the petitioner,

the Appellate Authority modified the order of punishment of

forfeiture of 50% of pension to that of forfeiture of 25% of

pension. It is against these orders of punishment as also the

communication of the same vide letters dated 5.10.2016 and

7.12.2016 that the instant writ application has been preferred.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner was falsely implicated in the vigilance case. On

perusal of the inquiry report, it would transpire that not a single

witness was examined on behalf of the respondents in support of

the charges levelled nor was any document exhibited or proved.

It is further submitted that the charges being similar to that in

the criminal case and the petitioner having been honourably Patna High Court CWJC No.2729 of 2017 dt.02.02.2026

acquitted vide aforesaid judgment dated 30.7.2016, the

respondents have no case on merits.

9. In response, it is submitted by the counsel for the

respondents that the petitioner was proceeded against in a

departmental proceeding on serious and grave charges. Though

the criminal case may have ended in acquittal, however, it is

well settled that departmental proceedings may still proceed

against the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to point

out any procedural irregularities. After giving full opportunity to

the petitioner, the departmental proceeding ended in the order of

punishment. The petitioner has not been able to point out any

illegality in the orders impugned and as such the writ

application be dismissed.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record.

11. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner

was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding with a

memo of charge having been served on him in Prapatra Ka on

16.5.2008. The petitioner filed his reply to the memo of charges

and the inquiry proceeded wherein the Inquiry Officer came to

submit his inquiry report dated 30.12.2008.

12. It may be observed here that in the criminal Patna High Court CWJC No.2729 of 2017 dt.02.02.2026

case/FIR lodged against the petitioner for the same/similar

charges, the trial proceeded and in the same the petitioner was

acquitted vide judgment dated 30.7.2016 passed in Special Case

no. 50 of 2007 by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance 1 st Patna.

Relevant portion of the judgment dated 30.7.2016 is reproduced

herein below for ready reference:

"21. In view of the aforesaid prosecution evidence brought on the record the whole prosecution case is based only on surmises and conjectures and there is no supporting evidence to the prosecution allegation. As such the prosecution has completely failed to substantiate the charges framed against any of the accused persons. Consequently the accused persons namely Akhilesh Kumar, Surendra Prasad Singh @ Surendra Prasad, Abhay Kurnar, Radhey Shyam Singh, Naresh Kumar, Jamun Mahto, Lalji Prasad, Laxman Tiwary, Shesh Kumar and Anwar Alam are hereby acquitted from the charges U/s. 120B r/w.420 I.P.C and S.13(2) of the P.C Act and U/s.420 I.P.C and S.8 of the P.C. Act. The accused persons are already on bail, hence they are also discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds."

13. Though it is true that the evidence required in a

criminal case and a departmental proceeding are different in so

far as while in a criminal case charges are to be proved beyond Patna High Court CWJC No.2729 of 2017 dt.02.02.2026

all reasonable doubts, in a departmental proceedings, the same

are proved on preponderance of probability, however, so far as

the contents of the inquiry report dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure-

3) in the instant case is concerned, it transpires that neither a

single witness has been examined on behalf of the respondents

in support of the charges nor a single document proved or

marked exhibit. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, it is a case of

no evidence against the petitioner.

14. The conduct of the departmental proceedings

and specially the inquiry report is clearly in teeth of the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop

Singh Negi versus Punjab Natonal Bank; (2009) 2 SCC 570

and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha; (2010) 2

SCC 772.

15. Not a single witness having been examined nor

any document or the contents thereof marked exhibit or proved

in course of the departmental proceeding the case is fit to be

allowed on this point alone.

16. In view of the facts and circumstances stated

above, the orders impugned dated 30.5.2014 (Annexure-6), the

appellate order dated 26.8.2014 (Annexure-7) as also the two

letters communicating the order to the petitioner ie letter dated Patna High Court CWJC No.2729 of 2017 dt.02.02.2026

5.10.2016 (Annexure-9) and the letter dated 7.12.2016

(Annexure-10) are all unsustainable and are hereby set aside.

17. The writ application is allowed with all

consequential benefits which shall be paid to the petitioner

within a period of three months from the date of

receipt/production of a copy of this order.

                                                  (Partha Sarthy, J)

Bibhash
AFR.NAFR
CAV DATE                    NA
Uploading Date              4.2.2026
Transmission Date           NA