[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Shankar Kumar Balmiki vs The State Of Bihar on 13 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2161 of 2022
======================================================
Shankar Kumar Balmiki Son of Sant Ram Resident of Ambedkar Chauk,
Shivpuri Purani Bhatti Ke Pass, Chitkohra, P.S. - Gardanibagh, Patna, Bihar -
800002.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Housing and Urban Development
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Patna Municipal Commissioner through the Municipal Commissioner,
Maurya Lok, Patna.
4. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.
5. The Empowered Standing Committee through the Mayor, Patna Municipal
Corporation, Maurya Lok Patna.
6. The Additional Municipal Commissioner (Establishment), Patna Municipal
Corporation, Patna.
7. The Executive Officer, Nutan Rajdhani Anchal, Patna Municipal
Corporation, Patna.
8. The Executive Officer, Azimabad Anchal, Patna Municipal Corporation,
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kinkar Kumar (SC- 9)
For the P.M.C. : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 13-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief:-
"(A) For quashing the Order contained in
Memo No-12105 dated 11.09.2021 passed
by the Commissioner, Patna Municipal
Corporation whereby and where under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
2/16
petitioner was dismissed from the Service.
And/or
(B) To call upon the records of
Investigations and other proceedings
instituted upon the private Complaint by one
anonymous complainant Respondent No.9
which led to completely wrong and bad
order Order contained in Memo No-12105
dated 11.09.2021.And/Or
(C) For issuance of an order (s) / direction
(s) or writ(s) in the nature of Mandamus
directing Respondent No-3 to reinstate the
service of the petitioner without any further
delay with all consequential benefits for
which the petitioner is entitled. And/or
(D) For ad-interim stay upon the Order
contained in Memo No-12105 dated
11.09.2021
in view of the order dated
14.09.2021 passed in CWJC 12598 of 2021
by this Hon'ble Court. And/or
(E)To award litigation costs and damages
which the Applicant has suffered because of
the malafide and malicious act(s) of the
Respondents.And/or
(F)For issuance of any further order (s) /
direction (s) or writ (s)."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on
the post of Peon on the recommendation of the District
Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting held on
25.05.1992 and subsequent thereto the Appointment Letter was
issued on 06.06.1992. The petitioner was posted at Patna
Municipal Corporation and started discharging his duties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
4. A complaint at the behest of some
employee/officials of the Corporation was filed by one
Parmeshwar Ram against the petitioner, wherein an allegation
was levelled that the petitioner has obtained the duplicate
appointment letter of one Shankar Kumar Balmiki whose
mother Santri/Santra Devi was an employee of the Corporation
and upon whose death the said Shankar Kumar Balmiki was
appointed on compassionate ground and by manipulation in the
document/Records, the petitioner has obtained job on
compassionate ground in the Patna Municipal Corporation.
5. It has further been submitted that the complaint
filed by Parmeshwar Ram was not an affidavited one and even
the copy of the said complaint was not provided to the
petitioner, which is in violation of the directions of the State
Government contained in (Paripatra) No. 6211 dated
09.06.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that pursuant to the complaint filed by Parmeshwar
Ram an enquiry was initiated and the order impugned contained
in Memo No. EST/IIIM/94/132/2020 12105 Ik-u-fu-] iVuk
dated 11.09.2021 was issued under the signature of the
Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation
whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
service and directions have been issued to lodge FIR against the
petitioner and to recover the salary from him.
6. It is further case of the petitioner that the
authorities concerned only with a view to harass the petitioner,
since he had participated in the strike called for by the
Employees Union have proceeded to take action against him.
Even no preliminary enquiry with respect to the complainants
bona fide was made and the respondents unilaterally proceeded
with prejudged mind.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the complaint was given to the respondent
authorities on 23.08.2018, but no action was taken on the same,
and all of a sudden the same was hurriedly processed since the
petitioner participated in the strike in the year 2021 for redressal
of the grievance of the employees of the corporation. He further
submits that from perusal of the original file related to the
petitioner it will reflect that initially the establishment section
was not finding any fault with the petitioner till September 2018
and all of a sudden in a mysterious manner the Municipal
Commissioner decided to dismiss petitioner from services on
16.09.2021, whereas this Court vide order dated 14.09.2021
passed in CWJC No. 5713/2020 and CWJC No. 12598/2021
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
directed the authorities that till such time the decision is taken
by the Government on the representation filed by the
employees, their services shall not be dispensed with.
8. The Commissioner Patna Municipal Corporation
has acted in a haste and without jurisdiction, since as per the
provisions contained in section 36(6) of the Bihar Municipal
Act, 2007 the Empowered Standing Committee is competent to
prescribe terms and conditions of the service, including conduct,
discipline and control of the officer appointed by the
Empowered Standing Committee. In the present case even the
provision contained in section 43 of the Bihar Municipal Act,
2007 has also not been complied by the respondent No.3.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the order impugned contained in Memo No. 12105
dated 11.09.2021 is wholly without jurisdiction, since no source
of power has been mentioned in the order that under which
power the services of the petitioner has been terminated and
even no charge Memo or (Prapatra Ka) has been issued against
the petitioner. Even no disciplinary proceeding has been
initiated and the Municipal Commissioner has acted in an
arbitrary manner with prejudged mind and proceeded in haste.
The order impugned has been passed without following the due
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
to process of law since no departmental proceeding was ever
initiated.
10. It has further been contended that no
documents or copies of the statements recorded of the witnesses
examined by the enquiry officer has been given to the petitioner
during course of enquiry and further no Memo of charge
(Praptra Ka) was handed over to the petitioner. The enquiry
officer on his own enquired into the matter and submitted the
enquiry report.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents No. 03 to 08 submits that vide letter
No. 06806 dated 26.06.2020 issued under the signature of
Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna,
one Shri Rakesh Kumar Jha, Deputy Municipal Commissioner,
Patna Municipal Corporation was appointed as enquiry officer
to enquire into the complaint filed by the complainant and he
was directed to submit his report within one month. After
enquiry he submitted his report to the Municipal Commissioner,
Patna vide letter No. 11694 dated 03.10.2020 and thereafter a
copy of the said enquiry report was sent to the petitioner and to
the another person of the same name i.e. Shankar Kumar
Balmiki son of Keshav Ram and both were directed to submit
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
their show cause along with evidence with regard to their
appointment within one month. Both of them were issued show
cause vide letter No. 14245 dated 09.12.2020.
12. It has further been submitted that no reply
along with evidences was submitted by the petitioner, therefore,
again a copy of the enquiry report dated 03.10.2020 were sent to
the petitioner vide show cause notice as contained in Memo No.
08520 dated 05.07.2021 issued under the signature of Municipal
Commissioner, Patna, Municipal Corporation, Patna and the
petitioner was directed to produced his evidence within three
days. Finally, the petitioner submitted his reply on 06.07.2021
which was received in the office Municipal Commissioner,
Patna, Municipal Corporation, Patna on 07.07.2021.
13. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal
Corporation, Patna, after going through the complaint, the
enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Municipal
Commissioner-cum- Enquiry Officer and the show cause reply
submitted by both the persons namely, Shankar Kumar Balmiki,
son of Keshav Ram and the petitioner, passed the impugned
order contained in Memo No. 12105 dated 11.09.2021 by which
the appointment of the petitioner was found to be illegal and
therefore, he was dismissed from services of the Corporation
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
and the Executive Offcer New Circle was directed to lodge FIR
and to recover the salary paid to the petitioner.
14. It has further been submitted by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation that
before passing the order impugned the petitioner was given
ample opportunity to produce evidence in support of his claim
and the disciplinary authority after going through
materials/documents available on record and after applying his
judicious mind, passed the order of dismissal.
15. A reply has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner wherein it has been submitted that no preliminary
enquiry with respect to the complainants bona fide was made
and the respondents proceeded unilaterally with prejudged
mind. It has further been submitted in the reply that no charge
Memo or (Prapatra Ka) was ever issued to the petitioner and no
disciplinary proceeding was initiated.
16. The respondent-authorities without following
the due procedure of law passed the order impugned whereby
the services of the petitioner has been terminated. The services
of the petitioner is not a case of termination simplicitor but
allegations are mentioned which causes stigma upon the
petitioner and therefore the respondents were duty bound to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
follow the procedure mandated by law i.e. framing of charge
giving an opportunity to the petitioner, conducting disciplinary
enquiry and thereafter should have proceeded to take decision.
17. It has further been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the very initiation of the
proceeding is not in accordance with law, therefore, all
subsequent proceedings got vitiated.
18. A counter affidavit has also been filed on
behalf of the State-respondents wherein it has been contended
that the petitioner has rightly been terminated, since he has
obtained an appointment on forged and fabricated documents. It
has further been submitted that in the order impugned, it has
been categorically asserted that from the proceeding of the
meeting dated 25.05.1992 of the Compassionate Appointment
Committee of the Patna Municipal Corporation, it appears that
at Serial No. 02 name of late. Santra was appearing and by
tampering with the same, Sant Ram has been mentioned and the
name of another Shankar Kumar Balmiki, son of Keshav Kumar
is there but the name of petitioner is not mentioned in the said
proceeding of the meeting dated 25.05.1992.
19. It further appears from the order No. 05 dated
06.01.2026 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
present proceeding specially paragraphs No. 03, 04 and 05
wherein, it has been recorded as follows:-
"3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that opportunity has not been
granted to him to defend his case and
without any proper proceeding, petitioner
has been removed from the service.
4. Upon a specific query of the Court from
the counsel for the petitioner that whether
the petitioner is in possession of the
documents demanded and described in the
impugned order, he submits that an
opportunity may be given so that he may
file those documents to show his bona fide.
5. In this background, counsel for the
petitioner is hereby directed to file a
supplementary affidavit within two weeks
annexing all those documents about which
the description has been made in Annexure-
2."
20. In compliance of the order dated 06.01.2026 a
supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner bringing on record certain documents, but from
perusal of the same it appears that no documents related to
services of late Sant Ram and the application submitted by the
petitioner for appointment on compassionate, ground before the
Patna, Municipal Corporation, as asked for from him and which
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
have been mentioned in the order impugned dated 11.09.2021,
have been brought on record, which suggest that the same is not
available with the petitioner and the petitioner was never in
possession of the same.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on
a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil
Appeal No. 1260 of 1966 (State of Uttar Pradesh V/S C.S.
Sharma) specially paragraphs No. 09. and 10 of the above
mentioned judgment which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"9. It was submitted by Mr. Agarwal that the
witnesses were being summoned by him to
clear himself of the charge of owning a car
without having the visible means to afford it
and this charge was not accepted by the
State Government. This is true enough but
the State Government came on the scene
much later in so far as the enquiring officer
was concerned, he had accepted the
allegation against Sharma and even if the
original list be considered, Sharma was
entitled to lead evidence with regard to the
car itself it is possible that if a date had
been fixed, he would, not only have led
evidence with regard to the car, but would
have brought witnesses to clear himself of
other charges, but no such opportunity was
clearly afforded to him. Further, before the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
case closed, the Commissioner had before
him a list of four witnesses and fair play
demanded that he should have fixed a date
and left it to Sharma to procure attendance
of his witnesses on that date, but if no date
was fixed Sharma was not expected to bring
his witnesses day after day in the hope that
the Commissioner would examine them any
day. The enquiry cannot be said to comply
with the elementary principles of natural
justice and therefore we have no hesitation
in accepting the decision of the High Court
that the enquiry was vitiated.
10. We may not omit to state that there was
an allegation against the Commissioner that
he was biased against Sharma. It does
appear that the Commissioner, in one of his
letters, stated that he had heard witnesses
and satisfied himself that Sharma was
definitely corrupt. This statement of the
Commissioner showed that he approached
the case with a feeling that Sharma was
guilty, although the State Government
cannot be said to share this bias of the
Commissioner. We would have said
something more about this, if the occasion
had demanded this, but as we are upholding
the order of the High Court on the ground
that no reasonable opportunity was afforded
to Sharma to lead his evidence, it is not
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
necessary to say whether an officer in the
position of the Commissioner, who on the
basis of secret enquiries behind the back of
delinquent officer has reached the
conclusion that there are good grounds for
holding that the officer is corrupt, should
himself conduct the enquiry that matter may
be left for consideration in another case."
22. The learned counsel for the respondent Patna,
Municipal Corporation rely on a judgment of the High of
Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 9408 of 2011, wherein the learned Single Judge on
the basis of different pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India dismissed the writ petition by holding that fraud,vitiates
everything.
23. The learned counsel for the respondent
Municipal Corporation further relies on paragraphs No. 15 to
18, 21, 23, 24 and 29 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Union of India & Another Vs.
Raghuwar. Pal Singh reported in 2018 (2) PLJR, 211 SC,
wherein it has been observed that there is no requirement of
following the principles of natural justice in cases of illegal
appointments.
24. The learned counsel for the respondent-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
Municipal Corporation further refers to a relies on Judgment of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court reported in 2023 (1) PLJR
112 Archana Kumari & Others Vs. The State of Bihar and
Others wherein in paragraphs No. 06 to 11, specially the
paragraph 09 the Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows:-
"Teachers who are required to bring-up the next
generation and educate them, have to be those who
have been trained from recognized institution. Such
teachers claim based on fake degrees, cannot have
any place in the present society for the purpose of
providing education. They have played fraud in
obtaining appointment and therefore they would
have no right to claim for continuance nor can they
be said to be having any vested right on the post.
Since they do not have any vested right on the post,
no opportunity of hearing is required and principles
of natural justice would not have any application
while dispensing with the services of such persons."
25. The learned counsel for the Municipal
Corporation further relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India reported in 1999 (6) SCC 237 M.C.
Mehta Vs. The Union of India wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that even if there is violation of principles of
natural justice, the same need not be set aside under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, if the quashing of the order which is
in breach of natural justice is likely to result in revival of
another order which is in itself illegal. It has further been
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
contended that while passing the above order the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India relied on another judgment reported in
AIR 1966 Supreme Court 828 and the same view was reiterated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in 2000 (7)
SCC 529 Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan.
26. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and after going through the documents available on
record, I find that despite opportunity being granted to the
petitioner by a Co-ordinate Bench of this vide order dated
06.01.2026 to bring on record the documents, mentioned in the
authorities in the impugned order dated 11.09.2021, but the
petitioner by way of supplementary affidavit has brought on
record several documents, except the documents to prove that
late Sant Ram was working in the services of the Municipal
Corporation and copy of the application submitted by the
petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground in the
Municipal Corporation, which goes to show that the said
documents are not available with the petitioner and by
committing forgery, he had obtained job in the Patna Municipal.
27. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order contained in
Memo No. 12105 dated 11.09.2021 passed by the Municipal
Patna High Court CWJC No.2161 of 2022 dt.13-02-2026
Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna, whereby
the petitioner has been dismissed from service.
28. Accordingly, the present writ petition is
dismissed.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
krishnakant/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 03.02.2026
Uploading Date 13.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
