[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Arun Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 6 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 18137 of 2023
======================================================
Arun Kumar Yadav Son of Late Narayan Yadav, Presently Posted as
Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat - Gawalpara, Block - Chhatapur
District - Sapaul. Permanent resident of Village - Litiyahi P.S. Pipra, District -
Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar
Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa.
4. District Magistrate, Supaul.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer cum Enquiry Officer, Triveniganj, District -
Supaul.
6. The Block Development Officer, Marauna District - Supaul.
7. The Block Development Officer Chhatapur, Distt. - Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Naresh Kumar Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms Archana Meenakshee, GP VI with
M/s Rana Veer Prawar, Harish Singh, Advocates
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2 The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:
"... ... ... for issuance of writ of
certiorari and mandamus or any other
appropriate writ (s)/order (s)/direction (s)
commanding the respondent authorities to set
aside the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the
Commissioner, Koshi Diision, Saharsa in Srvice
Appeal Case No 97 of 2015 in the light of order
Patna High Court CWJC No.18137 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
2/6
dated 27.02.2015 passed in CWJC No 3185/2015
by this Hon'ble Court as well as order dated
28.06.2010
contained in Memo No 268-2 by the
DM, Supaul whereby and where under two
increments were withheld on the basis of
departmental enquiry report dated 12.03.2010
conducted by the SDO, Triveniganj -cum-
enquiry officer without issuance of show cause
notice which is mandatory in the eye of law
ignoring the facts and circumstances of this case
and further prayer is to provide all subsequent
consequential benefits including the period in
question of two years may be taken into account
in the ACP benefit and to grant any other
relief/reliefs to the petitioner which the
petitioner may be found entitled to get in the eye
of law."
3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary on 25.07.2000
and since then he was working as the same. While posted at
Raghopur Block, the petitioner was transferred on 30.06.2009
from Raghopur to Marauna Block but was relieved on 04.07.2009
and on the next day, he gave his joining at Marauna.
Subsequently, vide Memo No 414-2 dated 17.07.2009 issued
under the signature of the Block Development Officer, Marauna,
he, along with others, was deputed to hand over charge w.e.f.
18.07.2009 to 23.07.2009. It has further been contended that
though the petitioner was present to hand over the charges to his
successor but till 08.08.2009, neither his successor took charge nor
the Block Development Officer, Raghopur relieved him and since
Patna High Court CWJC No.18137 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
his successor was not taking over charge from him, vide Memo No
1233-2 dated 06.08.2009 issued under the signature of Block
Development Officer, Raghopur, an order was issued to Shri
Shyam Sundar Yadav, who was posted as Panchayat Secretary at
Parmanandpur, to take over charge from the petitioner. It is further
contended on behalf of the petitioner that vide Letter No 1276
dated 12.08.2009 issued under the signature of Block
Development Officer, Raghopur addressed to the District
Magistrate, Supaul, it was intimated that the petitioner was
relieved from Marauna Block and was directed to report at
Raghopur where he gave his joining on 18.07.2009 but he is
absent thereafter and is not responding to the telephonic calls also,
in those circumstances, appropriate action be taken against him.
Accordingly, vide Memo No 320-2 dated 31.08.2009 issued under
the signature of the District Magistrate, Supaul, the petitioner was
put under suspension and during the period of suspension, his
headquarter was fixed at Block office, Triveniganj and it was
further directed that he will be paid subsistence allowance in
accordance with law. A Memo of Charge (Prapatra Ka) was
issued to the petitioner wherein certain charges were levelled
against him and vide Memo No 22-2 dated 07.01.2010, the
Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed to conduct
Patna High Court CWJC No.18137 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner. Show
cause notices were issued to the petitioner and he gave his reply to
the same on 09.02.2010. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting
enquiry, submitted his report on 12.03.2010 whereby he found the
charges levelled against the petitioner to be partially proved. It has
further been contended on behalf of the petitioner that without
providing a copy of the enquiry report or the opportunity to file
second show cause reply, the District Magistrate, Supaul vide the
impugned order contained in Memo No 268-2 dated 28.06.2010
proceeded to award Major punishment of stoppage of two
increment with non-cumulative effect and transferred the petitioner
from Block Office, Marauna to Block Office, Triveniganj and his
suspension was also revoked. The petitioner preferred statutory
appeal before the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa wherein
he alleged that no second show cause notice was issued to him and
even the copy of the enquiry report has not been provided to the
petitioner which causes great prejudice to him. The
Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa by his order dated
26.08.2022, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
4 Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits
that the petitioner deliberately disobeyed the order dated
17.07.2009 issued by the Block Development Officer, Marauna
Patna High Court CWJC No.18137 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
and remained absent till 18.07.2009, therefore, the Block
Development Officer, Raghopur, vide his Letter No 1276 dated
12.08.2009, recommended to the District Magistrate, Supaul to
take disciplinary action against the petitioner. Accordingly, the
District Magistrate, Supaul put the petitioner under suspension
and, after enquiry, proceeded to pass the order of punishment,
which was challenged by the petitioner before the Divisional
Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa by filing Service Appeal
Case No 97 of 2015, upon which the Commissioner, Koshi
Division, after hearing the parties, vide his reasoned and speaking
order dated 26.08.2022, dismissed the appeal preferred by the
petitioner.
5 From the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties
and after going through the documents made available on record, I
find that there is no denial in the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the respondent-State that the copy of the enquiry report was
handed over to the petitioner. In my considered opinion, none
submission of copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner has been
fatal to his case and therefore, the order impugned passed by the
Disciplinary Authority contained in Memo No 268-2 dated
28.06.2010 and the appellate order dated 26.08.2022 passed in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18137 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026
Service Appeal Case No 97 of 2015 deserve to be set aside and
are, accordingly, set aside.
6 The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to
proceed afresh from the stage of handing over the copy of enquiry
report to the petitioner and to proceed afresh in accordance with
law.
7 With the above mentioned observations and directions,
the present writ petition is disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
