[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Sujit Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 17 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5471 of 2025
======================================================
Sujit Kumar Son of Ravindra Prasad, resident of Mohalla Mathiya Zirat,
Police Station-Motihari (Town), District-East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Regional Deputy Director, Trihut Division, Muzaffarpur.
4. The District Education Officer, District-Sitamarhi.
5. The District Education Officer, District-Sheohar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Virendra Kuar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. K.K. Singh, AC to GP 22
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 17-01-2026
The petitioner is an employee of the Education
Department posted in the Office of the District Education Officer
at Motihari. He has filed the instant writ petition invoking the
jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for issuance
of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
departmental proceeding initiated against him on the basis of the
memorandum of charge, as the departmental authority has
hopelessly failed to prove the proceeding against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
2. The factual aspect that gives rise to the instant writ
petition is as follows:-
On 01.02.2021, one Gulabudin made a complaint before
the Additional Superintendent of Police-cum-SHO, Vigilance
Investigation Bureau, Patna, Bihar, alleging, inter alia, that he was
posted as a Peon at Madarsa Islamia Dariapur in the District of
East Champaran. He deposited all documents for issuance of
salary slip in the office of the District Education Officer. The
District Education Officer, Motihari, asked him to talk to the
petitioner for issuance of the salary slip. The petitioner demanded
a bribe of a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for issuance of the salary slip. The
concerned employee made a complaint before the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau making the said allegation. The petitioner
was arrested by a trap team constituted by the Vigilance
Investigation Bureau on 11.02.2021, red-handed while receiving a
bribe of Rs. 15,000/-. The petitioner was taken into custody and
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 06 of 2021 was registered against him
under Section 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said
criminal case is still pending before the competent criminal court.
As the petitioner was arrested in connection with a criminal case,
he was put under suspension with effect from 12.02.2021.
Subsequently, he was released on bail and his suspension was
Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
revoked. The petitioner was allowed to join in the office of the
District Education Officer, Motihari, on 11th October 2021.
Subsequently, he was again put under suspension vide Memo No.
1602 dated 30th November 2021. On 07th February 2022,
departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by a
memorandum of charge, and the District Education Officer,
Sitamarhi, was appointed as Inquiry Officer, and the District
Programme Officer, East Champaran, Motihari, was appointed as
Presenting Officer. The memorandum of charge was supplied to
the delinquent employee by the Inquiry Officer, and he was
directed to submit a statement of defence against the memorandum
of charge. It is contended by Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, that the memorandum of charge was not
framed as per Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. In the
memorandum of charge, no list of witnesses was appended. In the
list of documents, only reference to three internal letters was made.
3. During the disciplinary proceeding, the respondent
authority did not produce any evidence or examine any witness in
support of the imputation of charge. The Inquiry Officer finally
submitted his report to the effect that the department failed to
prove the charge of misconduct against the petitioner, as the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
department failed to examine any witness. As a result, the Inquiry
Officer submitted his report advising the department to initiate
departmental proceeding against the petitioner awaiting the final
outcome of the criminal case.
4. The disciplinary authority, however, did not accept
such report of the Inquiry Officer and he sent back the said inquiry
report to the District Education Officer for reconsideration of the
charge levelled against the petitioner. The District Education
Officer submitted the same report again to the disciplinary
authority.
5. The disciplinary authority then changed the Inquiry
Officer, and the District Education Officer, Seohar, was freshly
appointed as the Inquiry Officer, and the District Project Officer,
East Champaran, was appointed as the Presenting Officer, and a
fresh inquiry was directed to be initiated against the petitioner on
the same charge. The newly appointed Inquiry Officer submitted
the same report as his predecessor on the ground that the
department failed to examine any witness in support of the charge.
The departmental authority refused to accept the third inquiry
report and set up an inquiry against the petitioner for the fourth
time.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
6. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that the departmental authority, who is respondent no. 2
in the instant writ petition, viz., the Regional Deputy Director of
Education, Tirhut Division, Motihari, was over-biased against the
petitioner and is bent upon punishing the petitioner in the
departmental proceeding even without examination of any witness.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also refers to
paragraph no. 16 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 3,
wherein he admitted that the criminal case against the petitioner
has not yet been concluded and is not likely to be concluded soon.
7. The learned Advocate for the State respondents has
practically admitted the factual position involved in the instant
case.
8. I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner
and the respondents at length.
9. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 17 of the Bihar Government
Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, makes
out a detailed provision with regard to the framing of articles of
charge, which shall be in four parts, as hereunder:-
i) In first part, the personal information of the concerned
Government servant shall be recorded.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
ii) Second part shall contain the substance of the
imputation of misconduct or misbehavior as a definite and distinct
articles of charge.
iii) third part shall contain a statement of the imputation
on misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge,
which shall contain a statement of all relevant facts including any
admission or confession made by the Government Servant.
iv) fourth part shall contain list of such documents by
which, and a list of such witnesses by whom, the articles of
charges are proposed to be sustained. When the memorandum of
charge in a departmental proceeding is without list of witnesses,
charge memo itself a statement of the imputations of misconduct
or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall
contain- is violative of principles of natural justice because the
delinquent employee has every right and authority to know the
witnesses by whom the departmental authority proposes to prove
the charge.
10. In the instant case, the materials on record clearly
suggest that the Inquiry Officers submitted the same and identical
reports against the petitioner on three occasions, stating that the
departmental authority failed to produce any witness and that the
charge of misconduct, in the form of taking a bribe by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
petitioner, has not been proved. It is not in dispute that the criminal
case on the same charge is pending. From the admission made by
the respondents in the counter-affidavit, it is ascertained that there
is no assurance as to when the criminal case shall be concluded. In
view of such circumstances, a departmental proceeding cannot be
kept pending for years together, even after submission of reports
by the Inquiry Officers in favour of the petitioner, on the ground
that the report of the Inquiry Officer is not to the liking of the
departmental authority. It is needless to mention that a
memorandum of charge without any list of witnesses suffers from
vagueness, and the departmental proceeding on the basis of such
vague and ambiguous charge, where no list of witnesses was cited,
is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the departmental proceeding
initiated against the petitioner is held to be dehors procedure, and
the same is liable to be quashed.
11. For the reasons stated above, the instant writ petition
is allowed on contest. The departmental proceeding initiated
against the petitioner, i.e., Sujit Kumar, an employee of the
Education Department is directed to be quashed. The respondent
authority, specially respondent no. 2, however, is at liberty to take
necessary departmental action against the petitioner, if he is
Patna High Court CWJC No.5471 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 7(A) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, by the competent criminal court.
12. The instant writ petition is thus, allowed on contest.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Suraj Dubey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 12.01.2026
Uploading Date 19.01.2026
Transmission Date 19.01.2026
