[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Radha Krishna Vajpayee vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 12 February, 2026
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6250 of 2017
======================================================
Rajeev Kumar S/o late Radha Krishna Vajpayee, Resident of Village-
Akabarpur, P.S. Paliganj, District- Jahanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary Revenue and
Land Reform Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Revenue and Land Reform Department,
Danapur, Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
4. The Collector cum District Magistrate, District- Patna.
5. The Circle Officer, Maner, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Shankar Choubey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner filed the instant application for the
following reliefs :-
"(i) The issuance of an appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in
the nature of writ of certiorari for setting aside
the impugned order dated 24.09.2015 passed by
the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna passed
in service appeal no 130/2013 (Annexure-13)
whereby and whereunder learned commissioner
has pleased to reject the appeal of the petitioner
and upheld the order of the District Magistrate,
Patna dated 04.04.2009.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6250 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026
2/7
(ii) For issuance of writ of certiorari
setting aside the order 04.04.2009 passed by the
District Magistrate, Patna (Annexure-10)
whereby and whereunder the petitioner was
denied to pay his salary from 29.8.1984 to
20.12.1985
(suspension period) and the payment
of 15.03.2002 to 29.03.2005 (the dismissal
period)
(iii) And for the other necessary
relief/reliefs the facts and to the basis of
circumstances of the case as enumerated and
stated hereinafter"
3. The original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as
'the petitioner') having died on 21.8.2023 during pendency of
the instant application was substituted by his legal heir.
4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that while
posted and working as Rajaswa Karmchari (Revenue Clerk),
the petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental
proceeding by serving him a memo of charge. He was
suspended by order dated 29.8.1984, which was later vacated on
20.12.1985. The departmental proceedings ended in an order of
dismissal being passed against the petitioner on 15.3.2002,
which on being challenged in this Court was set aside by order
dated 28.2.2005 passed in CWJC no.14092 of 2003. While
setting aside the orders impugned, this Court remitted the matter
back to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law if they
Patna High Court CWJC No.6250 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026
so liked.
5. The respondents thereafter proceeded against the
petitioner and have passed the order impugned dated 4.4.2009
under the signature of the Collector, Patna whereby while
granting benefit of doubt to the petitioner, it has been ordered
that for the period suspension i.e. from 29.8.1984 to 20.12.1985,
no other amount would be payable to the petitioner except for
subsistence allowance. It has further been ordered that on the
principle of 'No Work No Pay', the petitioner would not be
entitled for any salary for the period of dismissal i.e. from
15.3.2002 to 29.3.2005.
6. The petitioner challenged the order dated 4.4.2009
in appeal which was dismissed by order dated 24.9.2015 passed
in Service Appeal no.130 of 2013 by the Commissioner, Patna
Division, Patna.
7. The order dated 4.4.2009 passed by the Collector,
Patna and the order dated 24.9.2015 rejecting the appeal by the
Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna are impugned in the
instant writ application.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that no good grounds have been given in the orders impugned
for not paying the arrears of difference of salary for the period
Patna High Court CWJC No.6250 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026
that the petitioner was kept under suspension and also for the
period that he was prevented from working as a result of an
illegal order of dismissal which was subsequently set aside. As
such it is submitted that the orders impugned be set aside, the
writ application be allowed and the respondents be directed to
pay the arrears of difference of salary for the aforesaid period.
9. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. It is submitted that pursuant to
the case of the petitioner having been remitted back to the
authorities by order dated 28.2.2005 passed in CWJC no.14092
of 2003, the respondents proceeded against the petitioner.
Though in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner in the
departmental proceeding, at least in one of the enquiry reports,
the charges against the petitioner had been found proved but the
findings were otherwise in a subsequent enquiry. Taking into
consideration these facts as also the fact of long pendency of the
proceedings against the petitioner, it was decided to give benefit
of doubt to the petitioner, holding him not guilty and only the
arrears of difference of salary for the period that the petitioner
had remained under suspension and had remained under
dismissal was not paid. It is submitted that there is no illegality
in the orders impugned, no merit in the writ application and as
Patna High Court CWJC No.6250 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026
such the same be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
11. On perusal of the documents on record, it
transpires that the relevant facts are that in the enquiry
conducted in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner,
the charges against the petitioner were not found to be proved. It
further transpires from the contents of the order impugned dated
4.4.2009 that still another enquiry was started against the
petitioner wherein the charges were found to be proved. It may
only be observed here that this procedure is not in accordance
with law. On submission of an enquiry report, the Disciplinary
Authority only has two choices. Firstly, either to accept the
enquiry report not finding the charges to have been proved and
to close the proceedings and in case of any difference, to
mention the difference and issue a second show-cause notice to
the petitioner giving the points of disagreeing with the contents
of the enquiry report.
12. It further transpires that subsequent to the
conclusion of the enquiry and submission of the enquiry report
by the Conducting Officer, the copy of the enquiry report was
not provided to the petitioner and the order of punishment came
Patna High Court CWJC No.6250 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026
to be passed. It was this order of punishment which on being
challenged in the writ application was set aside by order dated
28.2.2005 passed in CWJC no.14092 of 2003, however giving
liberty to the authorities to proceed against the petitioner in
accordance in law. The authorities/respondents thereafter
proceeded against the petitioner and came to pass the order
impugned dated 4.4.2009 under the signature of the Collector,
Patna. A perusal of the said order would show that there is no
mention as to what was the material that transpired against the
petitioner in the enquiry conducted. Neither there is any mention
of the oral or documentary evidence which were lead in the
enquiry against the petitioner nor is there any finding on the
same.
13. The respondents not having provided a copy of the
enquiry report to the petitioner though they got a chance to
proceed against the petitioner pursuant to the order dated
28.2.2005, this Court finds that once again the proceeding
against the petitioner which has culminated in the order dated
4.4.2009 (Annexure-10) being passed has been a half-hearted
approach.
14. This Court finds no reason for the respondents to
have withheld the arrears of difference of salary for the period
Patna High Court CWJC No.6250 of 2017 dt.12-02-2026
of suspension as also for the period of dismissal from the
petitioner.
15. In view of the facts and circumstances stated
herein above, the Court finds that the order impugned dated
4.4.2009 (Annexure-10) passed by the Collector-cum-District
Magistrate, Patna as also the order dated 24.9.2015 passed in
Service Appeal no.130 of 2013 (Annexure-13) by the
Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna are both unsustainable and
set aside.
16. The respondent Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Patna shall pay the arrears of difference of salary to the
petitioner for the period that he remained under suspension as
also the period that the petitioner was prevented from working
on account of the order of dismissal which was subsequently set
aside within a period of three months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
17. With the above observations and directions, the
writ application stands allowed with all consequential benefits.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 17.02.2026
Transmission Date N/A
