[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Raj Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 29 January, 2026
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8195 of 2022
======================================================
Raj Kumar Yadav S/o Shankar Prasad Yadav Resident of 51A, Mother Tresha
Marg, North Srikrishnapuri, P.S. S.K. Puri, District-Patna at Present Posted as
Deputy Secretary, Industry Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, I,C.D.S. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Under Secretary, General Administrative Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
6. The Collector, Siwan.
7. The Addl. Collector-Cum-District Public Grievance Redressal Officer,
Siwan.
8. The Lokayukta, Bihar through its Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. GA-7
Mr. Abhinav Ashok (AC to GA-7)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2026
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:-
"I. For quashing the order passed by
Hon'ble Lokayukta on 9.7.2020 in
comp. No.1/Lok(Kalyan)/8 of 2018
by which direction to initiate a
departmental proceeding against the
petitioner, competent authority will
Patna High Court CWJC No.8195 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
2/8
take appropriate action in light of
observation made in afore mention
order dated 20.2.2020, the office of
Director, ICDS shall be under
obligation to apprise the Institution
of Lokayukta as to the final outcome
of the departmental proceeding.
II. Further to set aside the
consequential order dated 18.1.2022
by general Administrative
Department by which two increment
was stopped with non cumulative
effect and also warning for 2017-18.
III. And also set aside the order
dated 27.4.2022 by which review
petition was also rejected."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the said order dated 09.07.2020 in Comp. No. 1/Lok (Welfare)
8/2018 passed by the Lokayukta is absolutely bad in law, due to
the reason that there is a gross violation of section 27 of the
Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011 (Act No. 22 of 2011) (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act of 2011'). He submits that the Lokayukta
cannot recommend to the competent authority for initiation of
the disciplinary proceeding under the rules of disciplinary
proceeding applicable to the public servant without conclusion
of enquiry or investigation. He submits that here in the present
Patna High Court CWJC No.8195 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
3/8
case, section 27 of the Act of 2011 creates bar and the decision
taken by the Lokayukta recommending the petitioner's matter
being a public servant, before the disciplinary proceeding, is
absolutely bad in law. He further submits that following the
order passed by the Lokayukta, the Disciplinary Authority has
taken action in which minor punishment has been imposed and
subsequently, the said minor punishment has been approved by
the Reviewing Authority which is also bad in law.
4. In support of his argument, learned counsel for
the petitioner relied on a judgment in case of Bipin Bihari
Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. passed in C.W.J.C. No.
18053 of 2019 in which vide order dated 03.06.2020, it has been
categorically held that the Lokayukta is certainly not a super
executive empowered to supervise/control functionings of the
executive and issue commandments to various functionaries
asking them to discharge their duties in a particular manner.
Further, the Lokayukta does not have any power of judicial
review over administrative action, akin to the powers of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, counsel submits that according to him, the
recommendation made vide order dated 09.07.2020 by which
the matter was referred for initiation of departmental proceeding
Patna High Court CWJC No.8195 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
4/8
is absolutely bad in law. He submits that since, the first order
passed by the Lokayukta is bad in law and is in gross violation
of section 27 of the Act of 2011, therefore, any further action
based on the order dated 09.07.2020 passed in Comp. no. 1/Lok
(Kalyan)/8 of 2018 shall automatically becomes bad in law and
therefore, all the impugned orders be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the law under the Act of 2011 is very much clear
that the Lokayukta cannot permit for departmental proceeding
being a super executive, rather, the law itself makes provision
that only after conclusion of enquiry or investigation, though,
Lokayukta can take decision under section 27 of the Act of 2011
for initiation of the departmental proceeding by the competent
authority. He submits that here in the present case, vide order
dated 09.07.2020, it become crystal clear that the Collector,
Siwan had constituted an enquiry vide his order contained in
Letter no. 507 dated 09.07.2019 by Three Men Committee
consisting of Additional Collector, Siwan, the District Public
Grievance Officer, Siwan and Sub-Divisional Public Officer,
Siwan, who upon examine all the documents have reached on
the conclusion that the present petitioner being the D.P.O, Siwan
was found to have committed a series of illegality and in fact,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8195 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
5/8
such action also amounts to committing criminal offence
inasmuch as he had pressurized his peon to prepare a forged and
fabricated service report. In this regard, a detailed discussion
taken place and lastly by the said order, the matter was
recommended for initiation of the departmental proceeding by
the competent authority. Counsel submits that in this view of the
matter, there is a true compliance of section 27 of the Act of
2011, and therefore, the further action following a lawfule legal
order of the Lokayukta are also valid in the eye of law.
6. Upon hearing the parties and upon going
through the record, particularly, the provision of law i.e. section
27 of the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011 which is very much clear
and states as follows:-
"27. Action on inquiry in relation to
Public Servants not being Chief
Minister or Ministers or Members
of the State Legislature.
(1)Where after the conclusion of the
inquiry or investigation, the findings
of the Lokayukta disclose the
commission of an offence under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
by a public servant referred to in
clause (d), (e), (f) or (g) of sub-
section (1) of section 16, any officer
Patna High Court CWJC No.8195 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
6/8
authorized by Lokayukta shall-
(a)file a case in the Special Court
and send a copy of the report
together with its findings to the
competent authority; and
(b)recommend to the competent
authority for initiation of disciplinary
proceedings under the rules of
disciplinary proceedings applicable
to such public servant;
(c)provide a copy of the report to the
public servant or his representative;
(2)The competent authority shall,
having regard to the
recommendations of the Lokayukta
within a period of thirty days of the
receipt of recommendation under
clause (b) of sub-section (1), initiate
disciplinary proceedings against the
delinquent public servant accused of
committing offence under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and forward its comments on the
report, including the action taken or
proposed to be taken thereon, to the
Chairperson ordinarily within six
months of initiation of such
disciplinary proceedings."
7. As per the above provision, it is well within the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8195 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
7/8
power of the Lokayukta that the Lokayukta shall file a case in
the Special Court and send a copy of the report together with its
finding to the competent authority and be recommend to the
competent authority for initiation of disciplinary proceeding
under the rule of disciplinary proceeding applicable to said
public servant and provide a copy of the report to the public
servant or his representative.
8. Here in the present case, admittedly, vide order
dated 09.07.2020, a reasoned order has been passed by the
Lokayukta and upon conclusion of the Three Men Committee
report, the Lokayukta has reached on the conclusion and with a
view to power so vested in him under section 27 of the Act of
2011, has recommended the case of the petitioner for
departmental proceeding by the competent authority and the
said competent authority has further passed order of punishment
completely in accordance with law. The order passed in case of
Bipin Bihari Singh (supra), shall not help the petitioner in any
manner, due to the reason that finding of the Hon'ble Co-
ordinate Bench of the Court indicates that the Lokayukta does
not have any power of judicial review over administrative
action, rather, under section 27 of the Act of 2011, only
provision which enables the institution of Lokayukta to make
Patna High Court CWJC No.8195 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
8/8
recommendations to the competent authority for initiation of
disciplinary proceeding upon recording a finding which
discloses commission of an offence by a public servant
punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. And
only after such finding as per the order dated 09.07.2020, such
recommendation has been made by the Lokayukta in exercise of
power under section 27 of the Act of 2011 to initiate a
departmental proceeding against the delinquent officer.
9. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the
opinion that the order passed by the Lokayukta dated
09.07.2020
in Comp. No. 1/Lok (Kalyan)/8 of 2018 is
completely in accordance with law and there is no need of any
interference in this matter.
10. Hence, with the aforesaid observation, this writ
petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 31/01/2026
Transmission Date NA
