[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Bachcha Prasad @ Bachcha Prasad Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 10 February, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16953 of 2025
======================================================
Bachcha Prasad @ Bachcha Prasad Rai Son of Shatrudhan Prasad Resident of
Village- Jalalpur, P.O.- Rasalpura, P.S.- Doriganj, District- Saran at Chapra,
the Headmaster, Middle School, Daftarpur, Anchal- Chapra Sadar, District-
Saran at Chapra (Under Suspension).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra, District- Saran at Chapra.
5. The District Programme Officer (Mid Day Meal), Saran at Chapra, District-
Saran at Chapra.
6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Saran at Chapra, District-
Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. B. K. Mangalam, Advocate
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Government Pleader 5
For the MDM : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-02-2026
Heard Mr. S. B. K. Mangalam, learned Advocate
for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this
Court seeking quashing of the order dated 27.08.2025, issued
under the signature of respondent no.4, as contained in Memo
No. 1576 dated 27.08.2025, whereby the petitioner has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.16953 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
2/6
placed under suspension. The challenge has also been made to
the Memo No. 1798 dated 09.09.2025 whereby the Memo of
charge has been duly prepared and served upon the petitioner.
3. At the outset, learned Advocate for the petitioner
submits that during the pendency of the writ petition,
suspension of the petitioner has been revoked, hence the
grievance of the petitioner to that extent has been redressed.
4. Coming to the challenge pertaining to legality of
the Memo of charge, it is vehemently contended by the learned
Advocate that without there being any evidence against the
petitioner, five charges have been framed by completely
overlooking the reply to the show-cause notice dated
02.06.2025
. It is further contended that in pursuant to the order
of the Apex Court and the decision taken by the State
Government, the facility of Mid Day Meal scheme has been
started. In pursuance of which the petitioner's school also
provided food supplied by the NGO. On 11.12.2024, insects
were noticed in the food served to the students, which led to
ruckus by the parents of the students and thereafter the students
stopped consuming the food. The aforesaid facts have been
brought to the knowledge of all the officers concerned and
guidelines has also been sought for. Surprisingly, instead of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16953 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
providing any guidelines, the respondent authorities have placed
the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of a
departmental proceeding and issued show-cause notice. The
petitioner brought on record the entire facts and circumstances,
under which the students themselves are not accepting the
MDM. Overlooking the show-cause reply of the petitioner, the
Memo of charge came to be issued, which is under challenge.
5. Attention of this Court has also been drawn
towards the charge memo and submitted at the bar that the
Memo of charge is also not in consonance with the prescriptions
provided therein, especially Regulation 2 and 3.
6. Learned Advocate for the State refuting the
contention led by the learned Advocate for the petitioner
submitted with all vehemence that the impugned Memo of
charge is in complete conformity with the Regulation, 2017 and
the disciplinary authority. There is definite and distinct article of
charge, besides there is a statement of imputation of
misconduct/misbehaviour against the delinquent petitioner. A
list of the evidences have also been annexed along with the
Memo of charge. In such circumstances, there is no infirmity in
the Memo of charge is the contention of the learned Advocate
for the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16953 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
7. It is lastly contended that the petitioner ought to
file a proper explanation/written statement along with other
supporting evidences to the Memo of charge, which shall be
looked into by the enquiry officer, who assigned the work to act
as an independent arbitrator and to conduct fair enquiry. If the
claim of the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition is found
tenable, in such circumstances, appropriate order shall be passed
by the disciplinary authority.
8. This Court has considered the submissions
advanced by the learned Advocate for the respective parties and
also perused the materials available on record. Well settled it is
that law does not permit quashing of the charge-sheet in routine
manner. In case, the delinquent has any grievance in respect of
the chargesheet, he must raise the issue by filing a
representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary
authority thereon. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the
chargesheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a
premature stage to deal with the issues. In the case of Union of
India and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in
(2006) 12 SCC 28, the Apex Court reiterating the earlier rulings
held that ordinarily a writ petition does not lie against a charge
sheet or show-cause notice for a reason that it does not give rise
Patna High Court CWJC No.16953 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
to any cause of action, the writ lies when some right of any
party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the
right of a party, is the observation of the Hon'ble Court.
9. Similarly in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Sangram
Keshari Misra & Anr., reported in, (2010) 13 SCC 311, the
Hon'ble Supreme court held that normally a chargesheet is not
quashed prior to the conclusion of the enquiry on the ground
that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason
that to determine the correctness or truth of the charge is the
function of the disciplinary authority.
10. Coming to the facts of the case, learned
Advocate for the petitioner could not make out a case that the
Memo of charge/charge-sheet was issued by an authority
without having jurisdiction or that the same dehors the statutory
rules. It is made clear that on receipt of the statement of defence,
either the disciplinary authority may himself enquire to proceed
in the matter and examine the same and submit enquiry report
after giving proper opportunity, whereupon the final order shall
be passed.
11. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position
and on being found no infirmity in the Memo of charge, this
Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, accordingly,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16953 of 2025 dt.10-02-2026
the present writ petition stands closed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
