[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Ratan Prasad Srivastva vs The State Of Bihar on 9 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16541 of 2022
======================================================
Ratan Prasad Srivastva S/o Late Banarsi Lal, R/o Mohalla Gaurakshani, P.S.
Sasaram (T), District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Prohibition Excise and
Registration Department, Bihar Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Prohibition Excise and Registration
Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Inspector General of Registration-cum-Excise Commissioner, Bihar,
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kumar Manish, S.C.-5
Mr. Kumar Pankaj A.C. to S.C.-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-02-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
"(a) For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s), order(s), direction(s) setting
aside the order contained in Memo No.
5174 dated 30/09/2022 passed by the
Additional Chief Secretary-cum-
Appellate Authority, Department of
Excise Prohibition and Registration,
Bihar, Patna upholding the order passed
by the Disciplinary Authority.
(b) For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s), order(s), direction(s) quashing
the order dated 29/07/2022 contained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
2/19
Memo No. 3803 passed by the IG
Registration, Department of Prohibition
Excise and Registration, Government of
Bihar where under and whereby
punishment of deduction of 10% of
pension for a period of 5 years has been
inflicted against the Petitioner under a
departmental proceeding.
3. At the outset, the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Senior Clerk
(UDC) in the office of the District Sub Registrar, Mohania,
District Kaimur and while being posted in the office of the
District Sub Registrar, Mohania, the petitioner made several
spot inspections including inspection in relation to Registered
Deed No. 1648 dated 18.03.2020 and Registered Deed No. 4915
dated 14.10.2020. The respective parties to the Deed No. 1648
shown the property in the deed to be agricultural land while in
Deed No. 4915, the property was shown to be commercial
vacant land. While making spot inspection, the petitioner came
to know that the parties deliberately, with a view to
escape/misappropriate the stamp duty and registration charge,
wrongly classified their respective properties and got different
properties inspected by keeping the petitioner in dark.
4. Immediately after coming to know about the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
3/19
aforesaid misdeeds, the petitioner reported the matter to the Sub
Registrar, Mohania. Subsequently, notices dated 28.12.2020
contained in Letter No. 312 and notice dated 01.02.2021
contained in letter No. 47 were issued to the parties of Deed
No. 1648 and similarly notices dated 28.01.2021 contained in
Letter No. 40 and 01.3.2021 contained in Letter No. 99 were
issued to the parties to the Deed No. 4915, calling upon them to
get their properties re-inspected and to pay the difference of
stamp duty and registration charges along with fine and penalty.
Despite issuance of the notice, the parties did not appear and in
compliance of the directions issued by the Sub-Registrar,
Mohania, the petitioner re-inspected the property in question on
12.03.2021
and 20.03.2021 respectively in presence of the Sub
Registrar, Mohania and submitted his report before the Sub
Registrar, Mohania.
5. It is the further contended by the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner that based on the report submitted by
the petitioner, the Sub Registrar, Mohania referred the matter to
the Collector, Kaimur (Bhabua) under Section 47A (3) of the
Indian Stamp Act Vide Letter No. 130 dated 13.03.2021 with
regard to Deed No. 1648 and Letter No. 142 dated 25.03.2021
with regard to Deed No. 4915.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
6. The Collector, Kaimur, vide order dated 28.07.2021
directed the parties concerned to both the deeds to deposit the
deficit stamp duties and registration charges along with penalty
and accordingly, letters were issued to the parties concerned
with a direction to deposit the deficit stamp duties and
registration charges along with penalty. The same was deposited
on 29.09.2021 and 08.12.2021 respectively.
7. It is further contended by the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner that although the deficit stamp duty,
registration charge and penalty was already recovered in the
month of September, 2021 and December 2021 itself, but the
department, on the basis of complaint made by the
vendor/witness of the sale-deed at a subsequent stage, issued a
letter dated 03.03.2022 to the petitioner along with the memo of
charge (Praptra Ka) dated 21.02.2022 and directed the petitioner
to file a show cause reply that why departmental proceeding be
not initiated against him.
8. The memo of charge contained three charges, out of
which the first charge was related to wrong classification of the
property while registering the aforesaid two deeds and thereby
causing loss to the Government exchequer. It was alleged that
due to act of the petitioner, the State exchequer suffered loss to
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
the tune of Rs. 11.18 Lacs. So far the charge Nos. 2 and 3 are
concerned, they were related to the first charge itself with an
allegation that the petitioner produced wrong enquiry report
with a view to facilitate profit to the purchaser and as such the
petitioner violated Rule 3(1) of the Bihar Civil Servant Conduct
Rules.
9. It is further contended by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that as per the knowledge of the
petitioner, no enquiry report was ever submitted by the joint
inspection team, as claimed by the department and the order of
the Sub Registrar, Bhabhua which has been made the basis of
the charges levelled against petitioner, was nothing but a table
work at the oral instructions of the higher authority.
10. The petitioner in compliance of the directions
contained in letter No. 03.03.2022 submitted his show cause
through email on 28.03.2022 and again the reply dated
13.03.2022 was sent on 14.03.2022 through registered post.
11. It is the further contention of the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner that the memo of charge and the
covering letter dated 03.03.2022 were issued by the Assistant
I.G. Registration, Bihar, Patna who was below in the rank of the
appointing authority of the petitioner, therefore, on this ground
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
alone the memo of charge can be said to be illegal. Further,
there was a list of documents with the memo of charge, without
there being a list of witnesses. Even the list of witnesses was not
furnished to the petitioner and issuance of memo of charge by
an authority subordinate to the appointing authority and the
memo of charge being without list of witnesses are violative of
Rule 19 read with Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control &Appeal) Rules, 2005.
12. Further the department again furnished the same
set of memo of charge dated 21.02.2022 to the petitioner with
another covering letter dated 11.04.2022 signed by the same
issuing authority i.e. the Assistant I.G. Registration, Bihar,
Patna. From perusal thereof the petitioner came to know that the
Assistant I.G. Registration, Patna Division was made the
Enquiry Officer, and the Sub Registrar, Patna was made the
presenting officer. Although the covering letter dated 11.04.2022
contained that the proposal to initiate the departmental
proceeding against the petitioner had the approval of the I.G.
Registration but no signature was found on the same of the I.G.
Registration, who is the appointing authority in case of the
petitioner. The enquiry officer issued Letter No. 250 dated
19.04.2022 to the petitioner, calling upon him to be present on
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
30.04.2022 along with a written show cause and other
evidences/documents. In compliance thereof, the petitioner
appeared before the enquiry officer on 30.04.2022 and handed
over his written show cause along with all relevant documents
but no proceeding was drawn on the date fixed and the
petitioner was asked to leave.
13. It is the further case of the petitioner that
thereafter all of a sudden the petitioner received the impugned
order dated 29.07.2022 contained in Memo No. 3803 issued
under the signature of the I.G. Registration, Bihar, Patna
whereby the punishment of deduction of 10% Pension of the
petitioner for five years was inflicted upon him. It was
contended that the order of punishment deals with enquiry
report dated 09.06.2022 contained in Letter No. 355, which is
said to have been served /submitted before the disciplinary
authority by the enquiry officer, but no such enquiry report was
ever furnished to the petitioner and he was never asked to
submit second show cause. Even from the enquiry report which
the petitioner is said to have come to know, shows that the
Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner, but without
assigning any reason in the order, the Disciplinary Authority
inflicted the punishment showing his disagreement with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
enquiry report.
14. It has further been contended on behalf of the
petitioner that during course of enquiry no witnesses were
examined nor any document was exhibited by the department
and based on the same, the Enquiry Officer proposed
exoneration of the petitioner from the charges levelled against
him. Even the disciplinary authority without disagreeing with
the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, and without
appreciating the fact that due to efforts made by the petitioner
the department was able to realize the deficit stamp duties,
registration charges and penalty.
15. It has further been contended that the impugned
order dated 29.07.2022 was communicated to the petitioner,
which was received on 03.08.2022, upon which an appeal was
preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Chief
Secretary- cum- Appellate Authority, Prohibition of Excise and
Registration Department Government of Bihar, Patna. The
Appellate Authority without giving any opportunity to the
petitioner of being heard and without considering the points
raised by the petitioner in his Memo of appeal, mechanically,
rejected the appeal by order dated 30.09.2022, without applying
his mind.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
16. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the entire departmental proceeding is in
violation of the provisions contained in Section 17(3), (4) and
(5) of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005.
17. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the respondent No. 2 wherein it has been stated that due to
laches on the part of the petitioner, the State exchequer suffered
a loss to the tune of Rs. 11.18 Lacs, thus, the petitioner violated
Rule 3(i) of the Bihar Civil Servant Conduct Rules. Since the
petitioner retired, therefore, departmental proceeding was
initiated under rule 43J3 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 and
the punishment was awarded, which was confirmed by the
Appellate authority under Rule 27 (2) (Kha) of the Bihar,
Government Servants (CCA ) Rules, 2005.
18. In support of his contention the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 12509/2024 (arising
out of SLP (Civil) No. 29758 of 2018) decided on 18.11.2024 in
the case Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Prasad and Others
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos. 12 ,13 and
15 held as follows:-
"12. Learned counsel for the State was
ad idem to the submissions of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
Appellant's counsel that no witness
whatsoever was examined during the
course of the inquiry proceedings. On a
minute appraisal of the Inquiry Report, it
is evident that other than referring to the
documents pursuant to12. Learned
counsel for the State was ad idem to the
submissions of the Appellant's counsel
that no witness whatsoever was e the so-
called irregular transactions constituting
the basis of the inquiry, the Inquiry
Officer failed to record the evidence of
even a single witness in order to
establish the charges against the
Appellant.
13. This Court in a catena of judgments
has held that the recording of evidence in
a disciplinary proceeding proposing
charges of a major punishment is
mandatory. Reference in this regard may
be held to Roop Singh Negi V. Punjab
National Bank and ors.
MANU/SC/8456/2008: 2008:INSC:1502:
(2009) 2 SCC 570 and Nirmala J. Jhala
v. State of Gujrat and Anr.
MANU/SC/0257/2013: 2013:INSC:170 :
(2013) 4 SCC 301.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the
only basic evidence whereupon reliance
has been placed by the enquiry officer
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
was the purported confession made by
the Appellant before the police.
According to the Appellant, he was
forced to sign on the said confession, as
he was tortured in the police station. The
Appellant being an employee of the Bank,
the said confession should have been
proved. Some evidence should have
been brought on record to show that he
had indulged in stealing the bank draft
book. Admittedly, there was no direct
evidence. Even there was no indirect
evidence. The tenor of the report
demonstrates that the enquiry officer had
made up his mind to find him guilty as
otherwise he would not have proceeded
on the basis that the offence was
committed in such a manner that no
evidence was left."
19. Similarly, in the case of Punjab National Bank and
Others V/s. Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraphs No. 18 and 19
has held as follows:-
"18. Under Regulation 6, the enquiry
proceedings can be conducted either by
an enquiry officer or by the disciplinary
authority itself. When the enquiry is
conducted by the enquiry officer, his
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
report is not final or conclusive and the
disciplinary proceedings do not stand
concluded. The disciplinary proceedings
stand concluded with the decision of the
disciplinary authority. It is the
disciplinary authority which can impose
the penalty and not the enquiry officer.
Where the disciplinary authority itself
holds an enquiry, an opportunity of
hearing has to be granted by him. When
the disciplinary authority differs with the
view of the enquiry officer and proposes
to come to a different conclusion, there
is no reason as to why an opportunity of
hearing should not be granted. It will be
most unfair and iniquitous that where
the charged officers succeed before the
enquiry officer, they are deprived of
representing to the disciplinary authority
before that authority differs with the
enquiry officer's report and, while
recording a finding of guilt, imposes
punishment on the officer. In our
opinion, in any such situation, the
charged officer must have an
opportunity to represent before the
disciplinary authority before final
findings on the charges are recorded and
punishment imposed. This is required to
be done as a part of the first stage of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
enquiry as explained in Karunakar
case4.
19. The result of the aforesaid
discussion would be that the principles
of natural justice have to be read into
Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof,
whenever the disciplinary authority
disagrees with the enquiry authority on
any article of charge, then before it
records its own findings on such charge,
it must record its tentative reasons for
such disagreement and give to the
delinquent officer an opportunity to
represent before it records its findings.
The report of the enquiry officer
containing its findings will have to be
conveyed and the delinquent officer will
have an opportunity to persuade the
disciplinary authority to accept the
favourable conclusion of the enquiry
officer. The principles of natural justice,
as we have already observed, require the
authority which has to take a final
decision and can impose a penalty, to
give an opportunity to the officer
charged of misconduct to file a
representation before the disciplinary
authority records its findings on the
charges framed against the officer."
20. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
Supreme Court of India in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni V/s.
Y.P. Education Society and Others reported in 2013 (6) SCC 515
wherein in paragraphs No. 31 and 34 it has been held as
follows:-
"31. The conclusion reached by the
Division Bench that the Tribunal and the
learned Single Judge had found that
there was a defect in the manner in which
the enquiry was held, and therefore there
was no question of it recording a finding
on merit to the effect that the charges
levelled against the appellant were not
proved, is also not sustainable in law. It
is always open for the court in such a
case, to examine the case on merits as
well, and in case the court comes to the
conclusion that there was in fact, no
substance in the allegations, it may not
permit the employer to hold a fresh
enquiry. Such a course may be necessary
to save the employee from harassment
and humiliation.
34. We may add that the Court has not
been apprised of any rule that may
confer any statutory power on the
management to hold a fresh enquiry after
the retirement of an employee. In the
absence of any such authority, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
Division Bench has erred in creating a
post-retirement forum that may not be
permissible under law. Law."
21. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. H.C.
Goel reported in AIR 1964 SC 364, wherein in paragraph No.
20 it has been held as follows:-
"20.This conclusion does not finally dis-
pose of the appeal. It still remains to be
con-sidered whether the respondent is
not right when he contends that in the
circumstances of this case, the
conclusion of the Government is based
on no evidence whatever. It is a
conclusion which is perverse and,
therefore, suffers from such an obvious
and patent error on the face of the
record that the High Court would be
justified in quashing it. In dealing with
writ petitions filed by public servants
who have been dismissed, or otherwise
dealt with so as to attract Art. 311 (2),
the High Court under Art. 226 has
jurisdiction to enquire whether the
conclusion of the Government on which
the impugned order of dismissal rests is
not supported by any evidence at all. It
is true that the order of dismissal which
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
may be passed against a Government
servant found guilty of misconduct, can
be described as an administrative order;
nevertheless, the proceedings held
against such a public servant under the
statutory rules to determine whether he
is guilty of the charges framed against
him are in the na-ture of quasi-judicial
proceedings and there can be little doubt
that a writ of certiorari, for instance,
can be claimed by a public servant if he
is able to satisfy the High Court that the
ultimate conclusion of the Government
in the said proceedings, which is the
basis of his dismissal, is based on no
evidence. In fact, in fairness to the
learned Attorney-General, we ought to
add that he did not seriously dispute this
position in law."
22. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the materials available on record, I find that
admittedly no witnesses have been examined and even the
substances /contents of the documents have not been dealt with.
Further opportunity of hearing was not granted, although it is
the mandate of law that opportunity of hearing/giving
opportunities for filing 2nd show cause has to be granted, in case
the disciplinary authority proposes to come to a different
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
conclusion, than the finding arrived at by the enquiry officer and
the disciplinary authority has to record his reason for such
disagreement, if he proposes to give punishment. In the present
case the same has not been done.
23. Further no evidence was adduced during the
entire departmental proceeding which could suggest the role of
the petitioner in causing loss to the State exchequer. Even no
sanction has been obtained to initiate departmental proceeding
against the petitioner, as required under Rule 43 (B) of the Bihar
Pension Rules.
24. Further the entire departmental proceeding has
been conducted in complete violation of the provisions
contained in Rule 17(3) and (4) of the Bihar Government
Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005. In the present case, I find that the
Memo of charge (Prapatra Ka) has been issued under the
signature of the Assistant I.G. Registration, who is not the
Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner which suggests that the
respondent authorities conducted the departmental proceeding in
complete violation of the provisions contained in Section 17 (3)
and (4) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
25. The disciplinary authority, while imposing
punishment upon the petitioner did not even consider the fact
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
that the enquiry officer while submitting his enquiry report, has
specifically mentioned that due to efforts made by the petitioner,
the deficit Court fee and Registration fee were recovered and in
these circumstances he had recommended for exoneration of the
petitioner. The disciplinary authority without giving any reason
for differing with the report of the enquiry officer, went ahead
and found the charges to be proved against the petitioner and
even didn't give an opportunity to submit second show cause
reply, inflicted the punishment of deduction of 10% of pension
for a period of five years.
26. The appellate authority did not appreciate the
enquiry report and the grounds taken by the petitioner in his
memo of appeal and rejected the appeal preferred by the
petitioner by holding that the grounds taken by the petitioner is
not maintainable or without any reasoning.
27. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the
orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the
appellate authority are not sustainable and deserve to be set
aside. Accordingly, the impugned order contained in Memo No.
3803 dated 29.07.2022 passed by the I.G Registration,
Department of Prohibition Excise and Registration, Government
of Bihar, Patna by which the petitioner has been inflicted with
Patna High Court CWJC No.16541 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
punishment of deduction of 10% of pension for a period of 5
years as well as the appellate order contained in memo No. 5174
dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary-
cum- Appellate Authority, Department of Excise Prohibition and
Registration, Bihar, Patna are set aside.
28. The respondent authorities are directed to
return/pay the amount recovered from the pension of the
petitioner forthwith and restore the pension of the petitioner
which he was entitled, prior to passing of the impugned orders.
29. The writ petition is allowed in the
aforementioned terms.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
krishnakant/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09 .02.2026
Transmission Date NA
