Hari Shankar Kashyap vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 272 Patna

Patna High Court

Hari Shankar Kashyap vs The State Of Bihar on 3 February, 2026

Author: Anshuman

Bench: Anshuman

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8438 of 2024
     ======================================================
     Hari Shankar Kashyap S/o- Sripati Pandey Resident of Village- Navin Nagar
     Purani Kalali, P,S.- Nawada, District- Nawada and also residing at Paura P.S.
     and District- Nawada.

                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s

                                         Versus

1.   The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2.   D.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3.   A.D.G. (Budget Appeal and Welfare), Bihar, Patna.
4.   D.I.G., Purviya Range, Bhagalpur.
5.   S.P., Naugachhia.

                                                               ... ... Respondent/s

     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Advocate
                                     Ms. Shruti Sinha, Advocate
     For the State          :        Mr. Dhurendra Kumar (AC to GP-5)
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 03-02-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for

issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for the

following relief/s:-

"1. For quashing memo no. 2236/Ra Ka Dt. 12.11-2022 issued by S.P. Naugachhia where by petitioner has Patna High Court CWJC No.8438 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026

been inflicted punishment of forfeiture of six month increment with non cumulative effect and equal to one black mark i.e. Annexure-4 and also for quashing memo no 1536 / Sa Sa Dt. 25/08/2023 issued by DIG Purviya Range Bhagalpur whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected i.e. Annexure-6 and also for quashing file no 50/2023/14/appeal Kosang Dt. 23/01/2024 issued by ADG (Budget, appeal and welfare) Bihar Patna whereby the appeal filed before him has been said to be not to be considered under rule 23 of Bihar C.C.A. Rule 2005 and police Manual Rule 851 (B) and rejected i.e. Annexure 7 and for grant of all consequential benefits or for any other order or orders which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner joined his service on the post of Sub-Inspector of

Police in 2009. The petitioner was serving in the Naugachhia

P.S and thereafter, transferred to Bhagalpur district. Counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.8438 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026

submits that a departmental charge was levelled against the

petitioner during his posting in Naugachhia P.S followed by

charge memo and departmental enquiry in which charges were

proved against him. The matter was recommended before the

Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority has

passed final order against the petitioner imposing punishment of

stoppage of six month increments with non cumulative effect

which is equivalent to one black mark. Counsel further submits

that the petitioner has challenged the said order passed by the

Disciplinary Authority before the Appellate Authority (DIG,

Purviya Range, Bhagalpur). But, the appeal of the petitioner was

rejected vide Memo No. 1536 dated 25.08.2023. Thereafter, the

petitioner filed further appeal before the ADG (Budget, Appeal

and Welfare), Bihar, Patna which was also rejected, as not

maintainable. On the point of merit, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that from the orders passed by the

Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, it become

crystal clear that second show cause has not been provided to

the petitioner. He further submits that in passing the order, there

is a gross violation of Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.

He submits that he has taken specific pleading in para nos. 24

and 25 of the writ petition that the Disciplinary Authority viz, Patna High Court CWJC No.8438 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026

the S.P., did not gave opportunity to the petitioner to represent

against the enquiry report, which is illegal. He further pleaded

that no second show cause was asked by the S.P. before passing

the order of punishment. Therefore, he submits that the order

has been passed completely in violation of the rule established

under law.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,

submits that the petitioner was granted due opportunity, rule has

been followed and a proportionate punishment has been

imposed upon the petitioner.

5. Upon a specific query of the Court from learned

counsel for the State that what is the response with regard to

para 24 and 25 of the writ petition, he fairly submits that in para

41 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the

submissions made in para 24 and 25 of the writ application

requires no comments, however, the fact remains that the

Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty.

6. In the light of the submissions made, particularly

on behalf of the petitioner that opportunity of second show

cause has not been given by the Disciplinary Authority,

therefore, this Court hereby finds that there is a gross violation

of the rule under which the proceeding has to be conducted.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8438 of 2024 dt.03-02-2026

7. Hence, the order passed by the Disciplinary

Authority dated 12.11.2022 contained in Memo No. 2236

(Annexure-P/4) and the order passed by the Appellate Authority

dated 25.08.2023 contained in Memo No. 1536 (Annexure-P/6),

both are hereby set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition stands

allowed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                     NA
Uploading Date             06/02/2026
Transmission Date            NA