316, Sipahi Brajesh Kumar Singh @ Braj ... vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 1207 Patna

Patna High Court

316, Sipahi Brajesh Kumar Singh @ Braj ... vs The State Of Bihar on 12 May, 2026

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23374 of 2019
     ======================================================
     316, Sipahi Brajesh Kumar Singh @ Braj Bhushan Singh S/o Sri Sambhu
     Prasad Singh R/o- Village and Post- Barail, P.S. and P.O. and District- Supaul.

     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through D.G.P., Police, Patna, Bihar.
2.   Director General of Police Patna, Bihar.
3.   D.I.G., Sahabad Reigion, Dehri On Sone.
4.   Superintendent of Police Buxar.
5.   Deputy Superintendent of Police Buxar.
6.   Krishna Kumar Inquiry Officer of the case cum The then Inspector,
     Dumroan Circle P.S., Buxar.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :       Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :       Mr. Manish Kumar ( Gp4 )
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
     ORAL JUDGMENT

      Date : 12-05-2026
                 Heard the parties.

                 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

     following reliefs:-

                       "(I) To quash the order dated-13.12.2016 bearing Memo
                            no. 6541 passed by Director General of Police,
                            Patna, Bihar (Respondent No. 2), communicated to
                            the petitioner vide Memo No. - 931/442055 dated
                            24.05.2019

through which Memorial Petition filed against order (Termination) dated- 14.05.2016, contained in Memo No. - 882, in Appeal (D.O.) No.- 755/ 2016 passed by Respondent No.-3, has not been accepted rather refused to expunge petitioner from charges leveled against him and denied to reinstate Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026

him in service on wholly erroneous grounds, without application of mind.

(II) To quash the order dated 14.05.2016, contained in Memo No. - 882, passed by The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Sahabad Range, Dehri-An-Sone, Sasaram at Rohtas (Respondent No. 3) in Appeal (D.O.) No.- 755/2016 where by Appeal filed by the Appellant against order (Termination) dated 25.08.2015, contained in Memo No. - 2702, passed by Respondent No.- 4, had dismissed the appeal and affirmed order of respondent No. -4.

(III) To quash the order dated 25.08.2015, contained in Memo No. 2702, issued under the signature of Respondent No. - 4 relying upon D.O No.- 1090/15 against departmental proceeding No.- 17/ 2012 whereby service of the petitioner from the post of Constable (Sipahi) has been terminated with immediate effect in a very arbitrary and capricious manner; in contravention of the basic and relevant provisions of law.

(IV) To quash the report of departmental inquiry no.

17/2012 initiated against the petitioner; conducted and submitted by one Krishna Kumar, Inspector P.S. Dumroa, because the procedure adopted was ex-

parte and not as per the settled principles and in violation of natural justice without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner.

(V) That, it is further request to direct the Respondent authorities to re-instead the Petitioner on his Post and allow him to discharge his duty.

(VI) That, it is further requested to direct respondents to make all relevant documents available to the Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026

Appellant regarding this case, so that Petitioner can defend his part more better then present."

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition

are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable. At the

relevant time, he was posted at Buxar and was deployed as

Security Guard for E.V.M. On the complaint filed by one

Constable Kanahaiya Lal Paswan regarding missing of 50

cartridges, an enquiry was initiated by the Dy.S.P., Buxar on

28.02.2012. On the same day, vide Memo No. 481/12, he

submitted his report before the Superintendent of Police, Buxar. In

the enquiry report, it was stated that Constable Kanak Lal Mandal

and Vindhyachal Sah, who were present on duty, informed that

yesterday they came to join their duty, but did not assume charge,

since the petitioner had asked them to take charge of 5 rifle and

200 cartridges only. They submitted that 50 cartridges were not

made available to them. On enquiry, the petitioner informed that

after handing over the charge, he went to Buxar to meet the officer

in-charge of Nagar P.S. alongwith Kanak Lal Mandal. On the

directions of the authorities, the petitioner appeared before the

Dy.S.P. and it was disclosed that out of 5 guards, one Anil Kumar

was sick and was referred to P.M.C.H. from the second day after Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026

deployment at the post, Sanjay Kumar Singh was on leave since

15.02.2012, Kanhaiya Lal Paswan was mentally unstable and also

became sick on 24.02.2012 to 28.02.2012 and Rohit Kumar was

also sick from 24.02.2012 onwards and was not present even on

28.02.2012, during enquiry. It was informed by the petitioner that

Rohit Kumar is the In-charge of Guards and Command letter is in

his possession. In presence of the persons, guard register was

checked and it was found that 5 guards were posted. Constable

no.86 Kanak Lal Mandal and Constable no. 684 Vindhyachal Sah

took charge of 5 rifles and 200 round of cartridges from Constable

Rohit Kumar, but no one signed on the said charge assuming copy.

It was also mentioned in the guard register that the petitioner was

present and attentive on duty on 23.02.2012 and 24.02.2012. After

enquiry and upon the directions of the Superintendent of Police,

Buxar, who vide Memo No. 1038 dated 28.02.2012 directed for

institution of criminal case, criminal case bearing Town P.S. Case

No. 57 of 2012 was registered against the petitioner, constable

Kanhaiya Lal Paswan and the In-charge Rohit Kumar, under

different section of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, vide

Buxar District Order No. 258/12, the petitioner was put under

suspension, but, neither a copy of the suspension letter nor a copy

of the Memo of charge was supplied to the petitioner. The Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026

petitioner was taken into custody and vide Letter No. 496 dated

02.03.2012, issued under the signature of the Superintendent of

Police, Buxar, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him

for the charges mentioned in the Memo of charge.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that any paper,

document, charge-sheet/Memo of charge was ever supplied to the

petitioner. The departmental proceeding was initiated and the

enquiry officer, after conducting the departmental proceeding

bearing No. 17 of 2012, submitted his report before the

Superintendent of Police, Buxar vide no. DR.594/13 dated

09.03.2013, whereby he found the petitioner to be guilty of the

charges levelled against him. It is the specific case of the petitioner

that during course of enquiry, neither any document was provided

to the petitioner nor any memo of charge was provided and even,

no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his show cause

reply, to the memo of charge and he did not even participate in the

departmental proceeding. The departmental proceeding was

conducted ex-parte and on the basis of the enquiry report dated

09.03.2013, vide letter no. 2702 dated 25.08.2015, issued under

the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Buxar, the services

of the petitioner was terminated. Being aggrieved with the order

passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner filed an appeal Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026

before the appellate authority. The appeal preferred by the

petitioner was also dismissed vide Memo no. 882 dated

14.05.2016, issued under the signature of the D.I.G., Sahabad

Range, Dehri on Sone. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred

Memorial before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

However, the Memorial preferred by the petitioner was also

rejected vide order dated 13.12.2016, passed by the Director

General of Police contained in Memo no. 6541. It is further case of

the petitioner that the petitioner had also preferred a writ petition

bearing C.W.J.C. No. 14208 of 2014, however the same was

disposed of vide order dated 13.08.2019 passed by a learned

Coordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to the authorities

concerned to take decision on the Memorial preferred by the

petitioner within 8 weeks and while considering/disposing of the

Memorial, the authority should consider the plea raised by the

petitioner regarding non-service of second show cause notice upon

the petitioner, in the background of the decision in the case of

Rohit Kumar, decided by learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

on 06.12.2016 in C.W.J.C. no. 10822 of 2015.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

during course of investigation in the criminal case on the Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026

confessional statement made by Constable Rohit Kumar, missing

50 cartridges along with one Bindolia was recovered by the police

from the shop of one Barber. The petitioner was also put behind

bars in the said criminal case and he was subsequently released on

bail on the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated

03.07.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16245 of 2012.

He submits that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted

ex-parte without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to

participate in the departmental enquiry. He submits that before

initiating the departmental proceeding no opportunity was given to

the petitioner to file show cause reply and the memo of charge was

never supplied to the petitioner. Even during course of

departmental proceeding, the petitioner was not given any

opportunity to participate, since during departmental proceeding,

he was in jail. He further submits that since the petitioner did not

participate in the departmental proceeding and the departmental

proceeding was conducted ex-parte, there is no question of cross-

examination of any witness on behalf of the petitioner and the

order passed by the disciplinary authority is in complete violation

of the provisions contained in the Bihar C.C.A Rules, 2005.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that prior to passing the impugned order of punishment, no second Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026

show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the disciplinary

authority only on the basis of the enquiry report, proceeded to pass

the impugned order of the punishment, whereby the petitioner has

been terminated from service. He further submits that constable

Rohit Kumar, against whom the allegation of not taking care of the

50 cartridges were there and on his confessional statement, the

cartridges were recovered, had also filed a writ petition bearing

C.W.J.C. No. 10822 of 2015. The said writ petition was allowed

vide order 06.12.2016 passed by a learned Coordinate Bench of

this Court, on the ground that no copy of the enquiry report was

forwarded to the said Rohit Kumar, which is in violation of Rule

18(3) of Bihar C.C.A. Rule, 2005 and the order of punishment was

not preceeded with the service of show cause on the enquiry

report, therefore, the writ petition was allowed and the matter was

remitted back to the Superintendent of Police, Buxar to proceed

with the matter afresh, in accrodance with law and in observance

that the statutory rules, from the stage of service of copy of

enquiry report. He submits that the case of the petitioner is

squarely covered by the judgment of the learned Coordinate Bench

of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. no. 10822 of 2015.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the State submits that despite repeated opportunities being given to

the petitioner to participate in the departmental proceeding, which

would appear from the enquiry report, wherein the enquiry officer

has specifically mentioned about sending notices/information to

the petitioner through post on his home address as also through the

Dumraon Circle, the petitioner chose not to appear in the enquiry

proceeding and left with no other option, the enquiry officer

proceeded to conduct the departmental enquiry ex-parte.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State

further submits that before initiation of the departmental enquiry,

all the procedures, as prescribed under law was followed and the

disciplinary authority after going through the reports submitted by

the enquiry officer, proceeded to pass the order of termination

against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was found to

be negligent in his duty and he did not take care of the 50

cartridges, which were in his position and for which, a First

Information Report was also lodged against the petitioner and

other similarly situated constables. He submits that there is no

infirmity in conducting the departmental proceeding and every

effort was taken by the disciplinary authority to consider the

enquiry report and then, after consideration the impugned order of Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026

termination was passed. He submits that even the appellate

authority, who passed the order on the appeal preferred by the

petitioner, proceeded to reject the appeal after thorough

consideration of all the defense raised by the petitioner. He

submits that the Memorial preferred by the petitioner was rejected

by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, after going

through the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the

appellate authority, as well as after the appreciation of the enquiry

report and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Director

General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State

further submits that a show cause reply was filed on behalf of the

petitioner, which was received on 4/6.02.2014, and therefore, it

cannot be said that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to

file his defense.

CONSIDERATION

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

after going through the records, it appears that a First Information

Report was lodged against the petitioner, wherein he was in

custody from 28.02.2012 to 03.07.2012. The memo of charge was

issued on 02.03.2012 i.e. after the petitioner was taken into

custody and a specific averment has been made in paragraph no. 9 Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026

of the writ petition to the effect with the memo of charge was not

served upon the petitioner and neither an opportunity was given to

the petitioner to submit his clarification, which has not been

denied by the respondent authorities, while filing counter affidavit

and only a statement has been made that the same is matter of

record. It further appears that during course of departmental

enquiry, notices were issued to the petitioner on different dates, but

admittedly, the petitioner was in custody, however after his release

from the custody 2 or 3 notices were issued to the petitioner.

However, it is the specific of the case of the petitioner that the said

notices were never received by him and no denial is there in the

counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent authorities. It

further appears that the enquiry report was submitted by the

enquiry officer, before the disciplinary authority and from the

order impugned contained in Memo no. 2702 dated 25.08.2015 by

the disciplinary authority, it would transpire that no second show

cause notice was issued to the petitioner or any enquiry report was

ever served upon the petitioner. The disciplinary authority in

complete violation of the provisions contained in Rule 18(3) of the

Bihar C.C.A Rules, 2005, without providing the enquiry report to

the petitioner or without giving any opportunity to the petitioner,

proceeded to pass the order of punishment against the petitioner, Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026

whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Further,

since admittedly no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file

his second show cause reply, there is no question of consideration

of his reply by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by

the disciplinary authority is based on the basis of the enquiry

report submitted by the enquiry officer, wherein admittedly, the

petitioner was not present. Even the appellate authority, without

considering the defense raised by the petitioner in his memo of

appeal, proceeded to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner,

mechanically. The Director General of Police, while considering

the Memorial preferred by the petitioner, did not even consider the

fact that the writ petition of similarly situated person was allowed

by a learned Co-ordinate Bench this Hon'ble Court, by directing

the Director General of Police to consider this aspect while passing

the final order on the memorial, but even then he did not consider

the same and proceeded to reject the memorial preferred by the

petitioner. It has been informed by the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner that Rohit Kumar, whose writ petition

was allowed by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide

order dated 06.12.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. no. 10822 of 2015, has

been reinstated in service and is working in the Police Department.

Further, pursuant to the order dated 13.08.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026

no. 14208 of 2014 preferred by the petitioner, an information was

given to the learned counsel for the petitioner vide Memo no.

931/442055 dated 24.09.2019 that the memorial preferred by the

petitioner has already been rejected on 14.12.2016 by the Director

General of Police and the case of Rohit Kumar cannot be taken

parity with the case of the petitioner, therefore, again the same was

rejected.

11. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion

that the order impugned passed by the Superintendent of Police

contained in Memo no. 2702 dated 25.08.2015, Memo no. 882

dated 14.05.2016 passed by the D.I.G. Shahbad Range, Dehri-on-

Sone, the order contained in Memo no. 6541 dated 13.12.2016

passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna and Memo

no. 931/442055 dated 24.09.2019 issued under the signature of the

A.I.G. (inspection), Government of Bihar, Patna, office of the

Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna deserves to be set aside

and are accordingly set aside.

12. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary

authority to proceed afresh from the defective stage i.e. from the

issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner. The entire exercise

must be completed within a period of six months.

Patna High Court CWJC No.23374 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026

13. The writ petition is allowed in the above mentioned

terms.

14. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

(Ritesh Kumar, J) Ajay/Pallavi/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                  NA
Uploading Date            16.05.2026
Transmission Date         NA