[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 17 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16550 of 2022
======================================================
Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh Son of Rameshwar Singh Resident of
Village and P.S.- Sanzauli, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. The Additional Collector-cum-Enquiry Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.
5. The Block Development Officer, Vikramganj.
6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Rohtas, Sasaram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Advocate
Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma (Aag3)
Mr. Saroj. Kr. Sharma, A.C. to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for following
relief(s):-
"(i) For setting aside the enquiry report
submitted by the enquiry officer as
contained in Letter No. 34 dated 15.06.2018,
whereby all the charges against the
petitioner were found proved without
examination of complainant and other
witnesses in support of the charge.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
2/37
(ii) The petitioner further prays for setting
aside the order of dismissal passed by the
District Magistrate Rohtas, Sasaram as
contained in order no. 16/21-22 dated
29.05.2021
, whereby the petitioner was
dismissed from service and was further held
ineligible for future empanelment under the
government.
(iii) For setting aside the order dated
18.08.2022, passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna in
Service Appeal No. 72/2021, whereby the
appeal filed by the petitioner against the
order of dismissal has been dismissed.
(iv) The petitioner further prays that after
setting aside the enquiry report as well as
order of punishment and appellate order he
may be reinstated in service with all
consequential benefits as he has not been in
gainful employment after dismissal from
service.
(v) For any other relief/reliefs for which the
petitioner may be deemed entitled to."
3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that while the petitioner was posted as Clerk-cum-
Nazir, Block Office Rajpur one FIR bearing Vikramganj P.S.
Case No. 91 of 2013 dated 25.04.2013, under Sections 147, 341,
323, 353, and 504 of the Indian penal Code was instituted by Sri
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
Arun Kumar, the Block Development Officer, Vikramganj who
was also the controlling officer of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner was granted bail in the criminal case
by the Court of Session Judge, Rohtas vide order dated
17.05.2013 passed in A.B.P. No. 1022 of 2013. On the complaint
made by the Block Development Officer, Vikramganj, the
petitioner was put under suspension vide order No. 11/2013-14
contained in Memo No. 418 dated 07.05.2013 issued under the
signature of the District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram.
5. It has further been submitted on behalf of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that a departmental proceeding was
directed to be initiated against the petitioner vide order No.
4112/2013-14 dated 04.11.2013 and Memo of charge/(Praptra
Ka) was issued and the petitioner was proceeded against
departmentally for the charges levelled against him. Show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner appeared
and submitted his detailed reply, wherein he denied all the
charges levelled against him.
6. The Block Development Officer-cum-Presenting
Officer who was the complainant against the petitioner,
submitted his reply vide Letter No. 46 dated 20.01.2014. The
petitioner thereafter submitted his rejoinder to the reply on
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
11.02.2014, submitted by the Block Development Officer-cum-
Presenting Officer.
7. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that during course of enquiry not even a single witness
was produced for deposition/recording of oral testimony in
support of the charges and the Presenting Officer himself was
the complainant who had instituted First Information Report and
in the departmental proceeding he himself did not
appear/presented himself for recording of oral testimony,
therefore, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-
examine him. The petitioner in support of his case produced one
witness, who supported the case of the petitioner.
8. It is further case of the petitioner that the complainant
who was also the Presenting Officer had earlier lodged three
different First Information Reports against his sub-Ordinates and
was also involved in misuse and defalcation of public money,
therefore, he did not appear in the case for recording his
testimony, which prejudiced the case of the petitioner and non-
examination of the complainant vitiated the entire proceeding.
9. The enquiry officer without considering the defence
taken by the petitioner and his written submission/reply,
submitted the enquiry report vide letter No. 34 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
15.06.2018, finding the charges to be proved against the
petitioner. The disciplinary authority i.e. the District Magistrate,
Rohtas issued second show cause to the petitioner vide Memo
No. 695 dated 07.08.2018, directing the petitioner to submit his
reply within a period of fifteen days, but along with the show
cause notice, the enquiry report was not provided to the
petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show
cause notice on 17.09.2018 wherein he denied all the charges
and brought on record all the facts.
10. The District Magistrate, Rohtas without considering
the show cause reply filed by the petitioner and the fact that the
complainant himself was a Presenting officer and he did not
depose during course of the enquiry, proceeded to dismiss the
petitioner from service vide order No. 16/2021-2022 issued vide
Memo No. 686 dated 29.05.2021 and further held the petitioner
to be ineligible for any future empanelment with the
Government of Bihar.
11. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner being aggrieved with the
order of dismissal filed a service appeal bearing Service Appeal
No. 72 of 2021 before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna
Division, Patna wherein it was specifically mentioned that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
present case is a case of no evidence, since the relevant
documents were not proved, the provisions of Bihar
Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 were also not
followed and there was apparently violation of principles of
natural justice, but the appellate authority without considering
the same rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide his
order dated 18.08.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that the
whole departmental proceeding vitiated on account of the fact
that the main allegation was levelled by the Block Development
Officer, Vikramganj and he himself was appointed as the
Presenting Officer in the departmental proceeding, which is in
gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The
Presenting Officer being the complainant was carrying malice
and acted with predetermination of mind and further did not
allow the petitioner to bring the correct facts on record of the
case, which was required for proper adjudication of the case by
the enquiry officer.
12. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that it is well settled proposition of law that
justice should not only be done but it must appears to be done.
The whole enquiry report and the order of punishment vitiated
on the account of fact that not even a single witness came
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
forward to depose in support of the charges and the documentary
evidence. He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in catena of cases has held that a document cannot be said
to be ipso facto proved and the content of the documents can be
proved only by laying oral testimony, but in the present case it is
an admitted fact that no witnesses turned up to depose in
support of the document which contains the allegation against
the petitioner. The dismissal order is based upon the enquiry
report and since the enquiry report itself is a nullity in the eyes
of law, the order of dismissal is also vitiated as it is well settled
proposition of law that if the infrastructure goes the super
structure is automatically collapses.
13. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent No. 03 wherein it has been contended that the
departmental proceeding was conducted as per Rule and the
accused/delinquent was given sufficient opportunity to present
his submission on each and every charges levelled against him.
The conducting officer took note of the submission made by the
delinquent and after careful analysis, submitted the findings of
the departmental proceeding along with his recommendation to
the District Magistrate, Rohtas.
14. The disciplinary authority after giving opportunity
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
for filing second show cause, as the charges levelled against the
petitioner are of serious nature and was fit for major
punishment, he after considering the reply, passed the final
order. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for
the State that altogether seven charges were levelled framed
against the petitioner and were of serious nature. Due procedure
was followed in conducting the departmental proceeding and
after the same, final order of termination was passed.
15. A reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioner
wherein it has been submitted that the whole departmental
proceeding vitiated on account of the fact that the main
allegation was levelled by the of Block Development Officer,
Vikramganj and he himself was appointed as presenting officer
in the departmental proceeding, which is in gross violation of
the principles of natural justice. He did not even produce himself
as witness in the departmental proceeding, therefore, for want of
his oral testimony the petitioner lost an opportunity to cross-
examine the complainant. It has further been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in reply that the findings of the
enquiry officer is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law in view
of the judgment reported in (2009) 2 SSC 570 (Roop Singh
Negi Versus Punjab National Bank). The findings of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
enquiry officer are perverse for another reason that the charges
have been proved on the basis of presumption, assumption and
doubt which cannot take the place of evidence, in view of the
judgment reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10 (Kuldeep Singh Vs.
Commissioner of Police). The finding of the enquiry officer is
merely his ipse dixit and based on conjecture and surmises and
suffers from complete non application of mind which also
makes the enquiry report perverse, as the finding is not at all
supported with valid and legal evidence. The order of dismissal,
based upon an enquiry report, which is itself perverse and nullity
in the eyes laws, therefore is liable to be vitiated.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner filed his reply to the second show
cause notice, denying all the allegations and the reasons for his
false implication and false FIR by the complainant/Presenting
Officer against him, but all these aspects were not at all taken
into consideration by the disciplinary authority and punishment
order was passed which is in clear violation of the principles of
natural justice, in view of the judgment of this Court passed in
L.P.A. No. 837 of 2023. He further submits that no witness
could be examined/produced by the department to establish the
charges, but even then the enquiry officer arrived at the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
conclusion that charges against the petitioner have been found to
be proved.
17. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on
behalf of the petitioner, wherein the judgment passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bikramganj at Rohtas in G.R.
No. 467 of 2013 arising out of Vikramganj P.S. Case No. 91 of
2013 has been brought on record. A perusal thereof it would
transpire that the petitioner has been acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 353, 333 and 504 of
the Indian Penal Code, for want of evidence.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
during course of the enquiry proceeding one witness was
produced on behalf of the petitioner, but the enquiry report is
completely silent with regard to the statement of the defence
witness and the documents which were produced by the
petitioner along with his written reply has not been dealt with by
the enquiry officer. He further submits that the charges have
been held to be proved only on the basis of the Memo of charge
and the written reply of the Presenting Officer, which was not at
all and authentic piece of evidence, since the petitioner denied
the allegation and therefore, the charges could have been only
prove by recording of oral testimony in support of the charges
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
and after providing an opportunity to cross-examine, but the
same has not been done. Further no witness was produced in
support of the charges which is a mandatory requirement of law
in terms of Rule 17 (11) of the Bihar (CCA) Rules, 2005.
Neither the documents have been proved by laying oral
testimony nor the contents of the documents have been proved.
The disciplinary authority without even considering the facts
that not even a single witness was examined on behalf of the
department, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service by
the impugned order dated 29.05.2021. It has been further
submitted that from perusal of the order of dismissal it would
transpire that the disciplinary authority extracted the entire
submission including the charges, reply of the petitioner, the
enquiry report, reply to the second show cause notice, but
without even considering the reply of the petitioner and the
infirmities pointed out by the petitioner in the enquiry report,
dismissed the petitioner by a cryptic and none speaking order, in
complete violation of the provisions contained in Bihar (CCA)
Rules, 2005 as well as the principles of natural justice.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Anil Kumar V. Presiding Officer, reported in (1985) 3 SCC
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
378 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 05
has held as follows:-
"5. We have extracted the charges framed
against the-appellant. We have also pointed
out in clear terms the report of the enquiry
officer. It is well-settled that a disciplinary
enquiry has to be a quasi-judicial enquiry
held according to the principles of natural
justice and the enquiry officer has a duty to
act judicially. The enquiry officer did not
apply his mind to the evidence. Save setting
out the names of the witnesses, he did not
discuss the evidence. He merely recorded
his ipse dixit that the charges are proved.
He did not assign a single reason why the
evidence produced by the appellant did not
appeal to him or was considered not
creditworthy. He did not permit a peep into
his mind as to why the evidence produced
by the management appealed to him in
preference to the evidence produced by the
appellant. An enquiry report in a quasi-
judicial enquiry must show the reasons for
the conclusion. It cannot be an ipse dixit of
the enquiry officer. It has to be a speaking
order in the sense that the conclusion is
supported by reasons. This is too well
settled to be supported by a precedent. In
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
India [AIR 1966 SC 671: (1966) 1 SCR
466: (1966) 1 SCJ 204] this Court observed
that a speaking order will at best be a
reasonable and at its worst be at least a
plausible one. The public should not be
deprived of this only safeguard. Similarly in
Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of
U.P. [AIR 1966 SC 671 (1971) 1 SCR 201]
this Court reiterated that satisfactory
decision of a disputed claim may be reached
only if it be supported by the most cogent
reasons that appealed to the authority. It
should all the more be so where the quasi-
judicial enquiry may result in deprivation of
livelihood or attach a stigma to the
character. In this case the enquiry report is
an order sheet which merely produces the
stage through which the enquiry passed. It
clearly disclosed a total non-application of
mind and it is this report on which the
General Manager acted in terminating the
service of the appellant. There could not
have been a more gross case of non-
application of mind and it is such an
enquiry which has found favour with the
Labour Court and the High Court."
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies
on a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of
Roop Singh Negi V. Punjab National Bank reported in (2009)
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
2 SCC 570 wherein in paragraphs No. 14 and 23 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has held as follows:-
"14. Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding.
The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial
function. The charges levelled against the
delinquent officer must be found to have
been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty
to arrive at a finding upon taking into
consideration the materials brought on
record by the parties. The purported
evidence collected during investigation by
the investigating officer against all the
accused by itself could not be treated to be
evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No
witness was examined to prove the said
documents. The management witnesses
merely tendered the documents and did not
prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter
alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the
FIR which could not have been treated as
evidence.
23. Furthermore, the order of the
disciplinary authority as also the appellate
authority are not supported by any reason.
As the orders passed by them have severe
civil consequences, appropriate reasons
should have been assigned.
If the enquiry officer had relied upon the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
confession made by the appellant, there was
no reason as to why the order of discharge
passed by the criminal court on the basis of
selfsame evidence should not have been
taken into consideration. The materials
brought on record pointing out the guilt are
required to be proved. A decision must be
arrived at on some evidence, which is legally
admissible. The provisions of the Evidence
Act may not be applicable in a departmental
proceeding but the principles of natural
justice are. As the report of the enquiry
officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also
surmises and conjectures, the same could not
have been sustained. The inferences drawn
by the enquiry officer apparently were not
supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is
well known, however high may be, can under
no circumstances be held to be a substitute
for legal proof."
21. The learned for the petitioner further relies on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
State of U.P. V. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC
772 wherein in paragraph No. 28, it has been held as follows:-
"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-
judicial authority is in the position of an
independent adjudicator. He is not supposed
to be a representative of the department/
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
disciplinary authority/ Government. His
function is to examine the evidence
presented by the Department, even in the
absence of the delinquent official to see as to
whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient
to hold that the charges are proved. In the
present case the aforesaid procedure has not
been observed. Since no oral evidence has
been examined the documents have not been
proved, and could not have been taken into
consideration to conclude that the charges
have been proved against the respondents."
22. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. V. Masood Ashmed Khan
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in paragraph No. 47 has held as follows:-
"47. Summarising the above discussion, this
Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always
been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record
reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is
meant to serve the wider principle of justice
that justice must not only be done it must
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a
valid restraint on any possible arbitrary
exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or
even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been
exercised by the decision-maker on relevant
grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
(f)Reasons have virtually become as
indispensable a component of a decision-
making process as observing principles of
natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and
even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial
review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all
countries committed to rule of law and
constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts.
This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial
decision-making justifying the principle that
reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions
these days can be as different as the judges
and authorities who deliver them. All these
decisions serve one common purpose which
is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant
factors have been objectively considered.
This is important for sustaining the litigants'
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for
both judicial accountability and
transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is
not candid enough about his/her decision-
making process then it is impossible to know
whether the person deciding is faithful to the
doctrine of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be
cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of
reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to
be equated with a valid decision-making
process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is
the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of
judicial powers. Transparency in decision-
making not only makes the judges and
decision-makers less prone to errors but also
makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See
David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor
[(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons
emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness
in decision-making, the said requirement is
now virtually a component of human rights
and was considered part of Strasbourg
Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain
[(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001
EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court
referred to Article 6 of the European
Convention of Human Rights which requires,
"adequate and intelligent reasons must be
given for judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions
judgments play a vital role in setting up
precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving
reasons for the decision is of the essence and
is virtually a part of "due process".
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies
on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Brij Bihari Singh V. Bihar State Financial Corporation
reported in (2015) 17 SCC 541 wherein in paragraph 9 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"9. It is well settled that a person who is
required to answer a charge imposed should
know not only the accusation but also the
testimony by which the accusation is
supported. The delinquent must be given
fair chance to hear the evidence in support
of the charge and to cross-examine the
witnesses who prove the charge. The
delinquent must also be given a chance to
rebut the evidence led against him. A
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
departure from this requirement violates the
principles of natural justice. Furthermore,
the materials brought on record pointing
out the guilt are required to be proved. If the
enquiry report is based on merely ipse dixit
and also conjecture and surmises, it cannot
be sustained in law."
24. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies
on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed in
L.P.A. No. 446 of 2024 The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Vikash
Kumar @ Vikas Kumar decided on 21.08.2024 wherein in
paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14 the Division
Bench has held as follows:-
"4. The learned Single Judge found that
there was absolutely no valid evidence led at
the enquiry conducted. Two officers of the
police force who conducted the preliminary
enquiry were examined before the Enquiry
Officer. They merely stated that statements
taken from eye witnesses, who saw the
petitioner with the lady probationer,
indicated that they were at a party and to
avoid detection; the petitioner together with
the probationer ran away and jumped over
the boundary wall of the party venue. The
learned Single Judge found that since there
was no valid evidence led at the enquiry, the
order of dismissal cannot be sustained.
5. We find absolutely no reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment, especially in
the context for there being no valid evidence
led at the enquiry. Admittedly, there was a
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
preliminary enquiry conducted and those
who conducted the preliminary enquiry were
alone examined before the Enquiry Officer.
They deposed only about the statements
recorded from eye witnesses; which
deposition is only hearsay evidence. The eye
witnesses were not examined and, in such
circumstance, it cannot be said that there
was any valid evidence regarding the
allegation of misconduct.
6. Faced with the above prospect, the
learned Advocate General urged that this
was a fit case where the learned Single
Judge ought to have remanded the matter to
the Enquiry Officer.
7. We beg to differ, since the ground on
which the dismissal order was interfered
with, was not a technical defect in the
conduct of the enquiry. It is only when the
termination of an employee is faulted on a
technical ground, there is need for a remand
on the ground inter alia of violation of
principles of natural justice; so as to resume
the enquiry from the stage at which the
technical defect is noticed. Where, in an
enquiry carried out, there was no proper
evidence led, the management cannot be
allowed to correct its mistake by making a
remand and permitting fresh evidence to be
led to find the delinquent employee guilty of
the misconduct.
8. The decisions in Union of India v. Mohd.
Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 and ECIL
v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727;
considered the issue of denial of reasonable
opportunity, when the enquiry report was
not supplied to the delinquent employee;
after the 42nd amendment of the
Constitution of India. Before the 42nd
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
amendment of the Constitution, there was a
requirement to issue notice to the delinquent
employee to show-cause against the
punishment proposed, for which a
reasonable opportunity of making
representation on the penalty proposed was
a mandatory condition under Article 311 (2)
of the Constitution of India. The 42nd
amendment removed the above condition
and it was the contention of the employers
that there was no requirement to supply the
enquiry report. It was categorically held that
whenever the Enquiry Officer is someone
other than the Disciplinary Authority and
the report of the Enquiry Officer holds the
employee guilty of all or any of the charges;
with proposal for any punishment or not, the
delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of
the report to enable him to make a
representation to the Disciplinary Authority
against the findings in the report.
9. The non-furnishing of the report, hence
amounts to violation of principles of natural
justice; in which context a remand is
necessitated, to supply the enquiry report
and afford a reasonable opportunity to the
delinquent to represent against the
prejudicial findings. The remand is to cure
the technical defect, so as to avoid any
prejudice being caused to the delinquent, by
reason of denial of a reasonable
opportunity, before being penalized and not
to clear up the lacuna committed by the
Management in the conduct of the enquiry;
especially when the enquiry was carried out
in a negligent manner without adducing any
valid evidence.
10. ECIL (supra) by a larger Bench, on a
reference made, reaffirmed the dictum in
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra). These were
cases in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court
found that a reasonable opportunity, to
defend the allegation of misconduct levelled
and represent against the findings of the
enquiry report, was not afforded to the
delinquent employee; in which case alone
there could be a remand made for the
purpose of curing the defect and affording a
reasonable opportunity to the delinquent
employee.
12. From the above extract it is very clear
that the High Court under Article 226/227 is
entitled to interfere when the finding of fact
is based on no evidence. If in every case
where no valid evidence is led at the enquiry
proceedings, there is a remand made, it
would be offering a premium to the
negligence of the Management/ Disciplinary
Authority and condoning the levity with
which the departmental enquiry was
conducted. It is the Disciplinary Authority
who appoints the Enquiry Officer and also
the Presenting Officer. We would think that
the Presenting Officer would be well versed
in the procedures and also be informed of
the manner in which evidence has to be led
before the Enquiry Officer to prove the
misconduct alleged against the delinquent
employee.
14. We find absolutely no reason to accede
to the request of the learned Advocate
General to grant a remand for the purpose
of producing valid evidence. The
Disciplinary Authority/the Department had
an opportunity in a properly constituted
enquiry proceeding and if such evidence was
not led, the punishment of dismissal has to
be found to be imposed on no valid
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
evidence. We perfectly agree with the
findings in the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal
in limine.
25. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies
on the judgment of this Court in the case Rajendra Prasad Vs.
State of Bihar 2024 SCC online (PAT) 3890 in paragraph 15 to
23 it has been held as follows:-
"15. In this context, we have to necessarily
notice the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Roop Singh Negi (supra), from
which Pragraphs 14 and 15 were extracted
by the learned Single Judge; but was given
short shrift, finding it to be not of any help
to the delinquent officer, which in our
opinion is otherwise and vitiates the entire
procedure and the report itself, putting to
peril the order of punishment too.
Paragraph 15 of the said judgment held
that a departmental proceeding is a quasi-
judicial proceeding and an Enquiry Officer
performed a quasi-judicial function. It was
held that the Enquiry Officer has a duty to
arrive at a finding after taking into
consideration the materials brought on
record by the parties and the mere evidence
collected during investigation by the
Investigating Officer against the accused,
cannot be treated to be evidence in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
departmental proceeding. This would have
to be proved by examination of witnesses
and mere tendering of documents would not
prove the contents thereof. Therein also, the
Enquiry Officer had placed reliance on the
FIR, which was categorically stated to be
not possible of consideration as valid
evidence, even in a departmental
proceeding.
16. True, in Roop Singh Negi (supra), the
Enquiry Officer had also relied on the
purported confession made by the
delinquent employee; which the delinquent
therein asserted as having been procured on
torture and coercion. There was no direct or
indirect evidence and the tone and tenor of
the enquiry report in Roop Singh Negi
(supra) demonstrated that the Enquiry
Officer had made up his mind to find the
delinquent, guilty.
17. We find no distinction possible, in the
instant case and merely on registration of
an FIR, the Enquiry Officer jumped into the
conclusion of guilt of the delinquent
employee. The disciplinary authority also
fell into the same error and referred to
documents produced by the Presenting
Officer, but not proved by either the author
or the custodian of such documents. As for
the demand and acceptance of bribe,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
neither was the complainant examined nor
was any witness procured from the
Vigilance Department, examined before the
Enquiry Officer. Again, the FIR was
produced by the Presenting Officer and
without any further evidence or proof the
allegation of demand and acceptance of
bribe was found proved.
18. We cannot but observe, with all the
respect at our command, that the
observation of the learned Single Judge
regarding the Enquiry Officer having found
on his own wisdom', considering the
charge- sheets that the misconduct stood
proved, cannot be legally countenanced,
without any evidence led at the enquiry.
Mere production of an FIR cannot lead to
the finding of a guilt and the occurrence of
a trap case as indicated by the FIR cannot
by itself lead to a punishment of dismissal
when even the FIR was not proved through
the police officer who registered it or the
evidence of the first informant.
19. We are quite conscious of the principle
that, in a criminal trial, a finding of guilt
can be only if the offence is proved beyond
reasonable doubt; whereas in a
departmental enquiry mere preponderance
of probability would be sufficient. However,
even for entering a finding on
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
preponderance of probability, there should
be some evidence led regarding the charges.
We cannot also countenance the finding of
the Enquiry Officer that he is not looking
into the facts as to whether a bribe was
taken or not. When the allegation is of
demand & acceptance of bribe, there should
be some semblance of evidence regarding
such demand & acceptance, by either
examining the complainant or a member of
the trap team, in which case, there could be
a finding on preponderance of probabilities.
In the present case, nothing of that sort was
done.
20. We also notice the judgment of P.
Gunasekaran (supra) from which extracts
were made by the learned Single Judge. We
specifically extract Clauses (a) to (i) laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Paragraph 12 of the cited decision, which
were the aspects, which could be looked
into under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution in a challenge against the
departmental proceeding. Clauses (a) to (i)
of Paragraph 12 are as under:-
"The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent
authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf;
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
(c) there is violation of the principles of
natural justice in conducting the
proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled
themselves from reaching a fair
conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits
of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed
themselves to be influenced by
irrelevant or extraneous
considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it,
is so wholly arbitrary and capricious
that no reasonable person could ever
have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously failed to admit the
admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence which influenced the finding,
(i) the finding of fact is based on no
evidence."
(underlying by us for emphasis)
This is a clear case of there being no
finding of fact based on evidence
21. We cannot but reiterate that the enquiry
does not have any finding of fact based on
evidence. Admittedly the delinquent had not
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
participated in the enquiry, but that does
not absolve the department from giving
short shrift to the principles regulating a
departmental enquiry and leading evidence
by examining the witnesses who can prove
the documents produced and speak on the
conduct of the officer as revealed from the
records or even personal knowledge. There
is absolute lack of evidence and mere
production of the FIR by the Presenting
Officer would not and cannot result in a
finding of demand & acceptance of bribe by
the delinquent employee. We have looked at
the order imposing punishment and also the
appellate order, which again does not speak
of any evidence having been looked into by
the Enquiry Officer. The peremptory
findings of the Enquiry Officer have been
accepted by the disciplinary authority,
again without any useful discussion on valid
evidence adduced at the enquiry. The
appellate authority, without any application
of mind and without reference to the
evidence led at the enquiry has rejected the
appeal. We accept the contention of the
appellant that it is merely on surmises and
conjectures that the misconducts have been
held to be proved.
22. We find no reason to uphold the order of
the learned Single Judge or the orders
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
impugned in the writ petition. The enquiry
proceedings and the report filed are held to
be vitiated; for reason of no evidence
having been led thereat. The order of
punishment and the appellate order are also
hence vitiated; for reason of having relied
on the enquiry report and the mere
allegations levelled against the delinquent
employee without referring to any valid
evidence, to find proof of such allegations.
23. We set aside the order of punishment &
the appellate order as also the order of the
learned Single Judge. The appellant has
already retired in 2019 and hence, the
appellant has to be restored to his service
from the date of his suspension and the
entire pay and allowance shall be paid to
him till the date of his dismissal, after
deducting any subsistence allowance paid.
Since he has been restored in service, the
appellant has also to be paid the pay and
allowances after dismissal till the date of
superannuation. The appellant shall also be
entitled to all retirement benefits including
pension from the date of his
superannuation, which shall also be
computed and the arrears paid to him. The
appellant shall be entitled further to
pension from this month onwards."
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Nareshbhai Bhagubhai V. Union of India reported in
(2019) 15 SCC 1 which has been recently been followed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishnadatt V.
State of M.P. reported in (2025) 7 SCC 5450 wherein in
paragraph 25, 26, 27 and 29 it has been held as follows:-
"25. In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v.
Masood Ahmed Associates (P) Khan
(Kranti Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010)
9 SCC 496 :(2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 852] this
Court held that: (SCC pp. 503 & 510-12,
paras 12 & 47)
"12. The necessity of giving reason by a
body or authority in support of its decision
came up for consideration before this Court
in several cases. Initially this Court
recognised a sort of demarcation between
administrative orders and quasi-judicial
orders but with the passage of time the
distinction between the two got blurred and
thinned out and virtually reached a
vanishing point in the judgment of this
Court inA.K. Kraipak v. Union of India
[A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2
SCC 262].
47. Summarising the above discussion, this
Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record
reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is
meant to serve the wider principle of justice
that justice must not only be done it must
also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a
valid restraint on any possible arbitrary
exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or
even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has
been exercised by the decision-maker on
relevant grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become
indispensable a component of a decision-
making process as observing principles of
natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial
and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial
review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all
countries committed to rule of law and
constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts.
This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial
decision-making justifying the principle that
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions
these days can be as different as the Judges
and authorities who deliver them. All these
decisions serve one common purpose which
is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant
factors have been objectively considered.
This is important for sustaining the
litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for
both judicial accountability and
transparency.
(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority
is not candid enough about his/her
decision-making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person
deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be
cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of
reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to
be equated with a valid decision-making
process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency
is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of
judicial powers. Transparency in decision-
making not only makes the Judges and
decision-makers less prone to errors but
also makes them subject to broader
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in "Defence of
Judicial Candor" [(1987) 100 Harvard Law
Review 731-37].)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons
emanates from the broad doctrine of
fairness in decision-making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of
human rights and was considered part of
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija
v. Spain [Ruiz Torija v. Spain, (1994) 19
EHRR 553], EHRR, at p. 562 para 29 and
Anya v. University of Oxford [Anya v.
University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405
(CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article
6 of the European Convention of Human
Rights which requires, 'adequate and
intelligent reasons must be given for
judicial decisions'.
(0) In all common law jurisdictions
judgments play a vital role in setting up
precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving
reasons for the decision is of the essence
and is virtually a part of "due process","
27. From the arguments advanced on behalf of the
parties and after going through the pleadings brought on record
by the parties, I find that the departmental proceeding as well as
the First Information Report were instituted/initiated on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
basis of the complaint filed by Sri Arun Kumar, the then Block
Development Officer, Vikrmaganj. In the departmental
proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner said Sri
Arun Kumar was made the presenting officer, to present the case
on behalf of the department and admittedly he did not present
himself for any deposition, which resulted in non-examination
of the complainant and no opportunity to the petitioner to cross-
examine him. Even during the entire departmental proceeding
no document was produced to support the case of the department
and only on the basis of the allegations levelled in the complaint
filed by the complainant/Presenting officer, the enquiry officer
came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the
petitioner have been found to be proved. Even no witnesses
were examined during course of the departmental proceeding,
but even then the enquiry officer found the charges to be proved.
It further appears that the disciplinary authority without
considering the infirmities in the enquiry report submitted by the
enquiry officer and which were pointed out by the petitioner in
his second show cause reply, did not consider the same and
proceeded to award punishment upon the petitioner.
28. The appellate authority also did not take into
consideration the defence taken by the petitioner in his Memo of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
Appeal with regard to the infirmities during course of the
enquiry, proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner.
The entire departmental proceeding from the issuance of
Prapatra-Ka was conducted in complete violation of the
provisions contained in Rule 17 (ii) (B) of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005, since the same did not contained the list of witnesses,
which is mandatory requirement of the law.
29. Similarly no witnesses were produced/examined
during course of the departmental proceeding to prove the
charges which is the mandate of the law as per the provisions
contained in Section 17 (11) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
30. From the above facts, I find that the entire
departmental proceeding was conducted in complete violation of
the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005 and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the
impugned order contained in Memo No. 683 dated 29.05.2021
issued under the signature of the District Magistrate, Rohtas,
whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the
appellate order dated 18.08.2022 passed in Service Appeal No.
72 of 2021 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was
rejected by the appellate authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner,
Patna Division, Patna deserves to set aside and are accordingly
Patna High Court CWJC No.16550 of 2022 dt.17-02-2026
set aside.
31. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary
authority to proceed afresh from the stage of issuance Memo of
charge itself. The entire exercise must be completed within a
period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a
copy of the order.
32. With the aforementioned observation and direction
the present writ petition is allowed.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
krishnakant/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
