[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Avinash Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 27 January, 2026
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17643 of 2024
======================================================
Avinash Kumar son of Rajendra Prasad, Resident of Village-Lata Nivas, Hatia
Road, Tilka Manjhi, P.S.-Tilka Manjhi, District-Bhagalpur at present
suspended Manager, Bettia Raj, Bettiah.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Chairman, Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
5. Secondary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
6. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.
7. Joint Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
8. Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
9. Under Secretary, Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.
10. Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.
11. Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
12. District Officer cum Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader 04,
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief/s:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
2/9
"I. Issuance of an appropriate writ
including a writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the order vide
Gyapank-2/Aarop-01-13/2024-Sa
Pra-15104/Patna-15 dated
20.09.2024
(Annexure-P/6) issued
under the signature of Under
Secretary, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna (Respondent no. 8) and also
quashing the order vide letter no.
2/Aarop-01-13/2024-Sa Pra-15148,
Patna-15 dated 23.09.2024
(Annexure-P/7) issued under the
signature of Under Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
(Respondent no. 8) without any legal
basis and also not followed the rule
9(1) of Bihar Government servants
(Classification Control and Appeal)
Rules 2005 while the petitioner was
on leave duly sanctioned by the
competent authority due to illness of
his wife illness because his wife was
admitted in Shrishty Nurshing Home,
Bhagalpur under the treatment of Dr.
Sangita Mehta.
II. Issuance of an appropriate writ
including a writ in the nature of writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondents to revoke
the suspension order dated
20.09.2024 (Annexure-P/6)
immediately and the petitioner
posted at any place in Bihar on the
post of A.D.M. rank because the said
suspension order is illegal and not
sustainable in the eye of law.
III. Issuance of any other appropriate
writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as may
be deemed fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner joined the Government Service on 22.06.1995 as a
Deputy Collector (Bihar Administration Service) through 38 th
Bihar Public Service Examination, conducted by the Bihar
Public Service Commission, Patna. Counsel submits that the
petitioner was transferred from Sheohar as Settlement Officer to
as Manager Bettiah Raj, Bettiah and the petitioner joined as a
Manager Bettiah Raj, Bettiah on 12.02.2024 and taken charges
from the District Public Grievance Redressal Officer who was
posted as Incharge Manager, Bettiah Raj, Bettiah. Counsel
further submits that the petitioner was on leave from 19.08.2024
due to illness of his wife which was duly sanctioned by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
competent authority. In this regard, petitioner has filed an
application before the authority on 18.08.2024 regarding leave
sanction vide Letter No. 426 dated 18.08.2024. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed applications dated 26.08.2024 and 07.09.2024
regarding extension of leave before the authority as per the
Doctor. Counsel further submits that the Deputy Secretary,
Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna (Respondent no.10) sent a letter
to the petitioner on 27.08.2024 regarding participation in the
meeting, while the petitioner was on leave, and due to illness of
his wife, he could not attend the said meeting.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner was suspended under Rule 9(1) of the
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal)
Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Bihar CCA Rules,
2005') vide order dated 20.09.2024 contained in Memo No.
15104 (Annexure-P/6). Counsel submits that the charges
levelled against the petitioner is totally baseless and the said
charges are not sustainable in the eye of law. Counsel submits
that the charge levelled against the petitioner was relating to his
absence without permission of the authority. Counsel submits
that he has explained the entire situation under which he has
taken leave. But, charge sheet has also been issued after
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
suspension. Counsel submits that the suspension order and the
issuance of charge memo, both are baseless and there is no
material for the same. In this regard, he has relied on a letter
which is annexed as Annexure-P/11 to the supplementary
affidavit written by the Manager, Bettiah Raj, Bettiah to the
Under Secretary, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna dated
16.01.2025. Counsel relying on said Annexure-P/11 and submits
that there is no evidence against the petitioner for charge nos.1,
2, 3 & 4. He submits that the charge memo should be set aside
and the suspension order be also set aside. Counsel further
relying on one letter issued by the General Administrative
Department, Government of Bihar dated 21.07.2023 contained
in Letter No. 13888 and submits that the Disciplinary Authority
shall review the suspension of government servants under their
control, who have been suspended for a period exceeding 01
year, every 03 months. He submits that here in the present case,
the suspension is admittedly for about 16 months. Therefore,
relying on the said letter, counsel submits that the writ petition
be allowed and the suspension order as well as the charge
memo, both be set aside. Counsel submits that the suspension of
other person has been revoked who was working as D.C.L.R
vide Memo No. 18916 dated 06.10.2025. He submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
parity be maintained in his case also.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
submits that the suspension order as well as the charge memo
have been issued/passed completely in accordance with law. He
submits that under Rule 9(7) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, the
removal or suspension is valid only when no charge memo has
been issued within a fixed period of time. Here in the present
case, according to him, the charge memo has been issued well
within time and therefore, he submits that the charge memo is
not bad and whatever be the defence the petitioner has to take,
he has to take before the Enquiry Officer and not directly before
this Hon'ble Court. Counsel further submits that the said
resolution issued by the General Administrative Department,
Government of Bihar dated 21.07.2023 contained in Letter No.
13888 has no application at all in the present case, due to the
reason that Rule 9(7) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 is in favour
of the State. The allegation of indiscipline is against the
petitioner. He submits that even if no charge is there or any
document is not there, then simply by writing a letter which is
through internal correspondence, shall not help the petitioner in
any manner. And whatever the petitioner has to say, he has to
say before the Enquiry Officer only.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
6. After hearing the parties, there are certain
aspects which are necessary to be taken care of in the present
writ petition. Firstly that whether suspension is in accordance
with law or not. The answer is that it is well within the power of
the Disciplinary Authority to suspend the employee. The order
of suspension is well within the jurisdiction. Therefore, this
Court shall not interfere in the order of suspension. It is also
very clear that the appeal is maintainable against the order of
suspension under Rule 23 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. But,
the petitioner has not preferred any appeal and directly moved
before this Hon'ble Court for quashing of the suspension order.
7. The second point that whether the charge memo
is defective or not. This Court has perused the charge memo
which is part of Annexure- P/7. From the said charge memo, it
transpires that the said charge memo has been issued on
20.09.2024 i.e. after enactment of regulation namely, Bihar
Framing Of Articles Of Charge Against Government Servants
Regulations, 2017. The Appendix 1 of the said regulation
indicates that the memo of article of charge shall contain four
parts. Here in the present case, all the four parts are present. And
therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the charge memo is
not defective and it is completely in accordance with the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
regulation of 2017. It is due to this reason, this Court is not
ready to quash the charge memo. So far as the maintainability of
the charges alleged against the petitioner by virtue of the charge
memo is concerned, reliance on Annexure-P/11 shall not help
the petitioner in the manner he seeks. For his defence, he has to
appear before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer shall
decide the same.
8. So far as the question of parity which the
petitioner raised before this Hon'ble Court by virtue of a
similarly situated person in case of Ishtdev Mahadev, the then
D.C.L.R, Danapur who was also suspended. But, after
completion of one year in the light of Letter No. 13888 dated
21.07.2023, his suspension was removed, but the disciplinary
proceeding continued.
9. This Court is hereby neither setting aside the
suspension order nor the charge memo, but only directs the
Principal Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna (Respondent no.4) who is the
competent authority, to take a decision in case of the petitioner
who is a Gazetted Officer and maintain the parity as like that of
Ishtdev Mahadev the then D.C.L.R, Danapur contained in
Memo No. 18916 dated 06.10.2025, within 90 days from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17643 of 2024 dt.27-01-2026
date of production of a copy of this order. It is also directed that
the rule on the basis of which relief has been granted to another
person be also directed to be apply in case of petitioner i.e.
contained in Memo No. 18344 dated 27.09.2023.
10. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, this
writ petition stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29/01/2026
Transmission Date NA
