Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR, J.
CWJC No.15706 of 2021
(1.8.2025)
Satyendra Narayan Singh ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Bihar Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1976 – Rule 14(xi) – Bihar Service Code, 1952 – Rule 99 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Dismissal from service – Non-payment of subsistence allowance during period of suspension – It is not on mere whims and fancies that any opinion should be formed by disciplinary authority merely on seriousness of charge rather before any final opinion is expressed on charge, Disciplinary Authority is under a lawful obligation to follow procedure prescribed under service rules – Scope of judicial review is limited to deficiency in decision making process and not the decision – In disciplinary proceeding Court cannot act as a second court of first appeal and shall not venture into re-appreciation of evidence – There must be a level of infirmity greater than ordinary in a Tribunal's order, which is facing judicial scrutiny before High Court, to justify interference – None of member of raiding party either pre and post trap was examined to prove charge of demand and acceptance of bribe – When a government servant is facing a disciplinary proceeding he is entitled to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet charges against him in an effective manner – Principles of natural justice demands that delinquent should be given an opportunity to refute charge levelled against him by disciplinary authority – Impugned order set aside – Writ Petition allowed. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 24, 27, 29 and 34)
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Alternative remedy – Rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion – In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of alternative remedy Writ Court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review – Even if petitioner has had remedy of review but scope of such remedy is confined to extent of error apparent on face of record. (Para 17)
The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that the order of dismissal from service is invalid when the disciplinary process is vitiated due to procedural irregularities, such as failure to follow the prescribed rules for framing charges, inadequate opportunity to defend, and non-compliance with principles of natural justice. The court emphasizes that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to examining procedural fairness and the decision-making process, rather than re-evaluating the evidence or the merits of the case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . It further holds that an order lacking proper reasoning, or one that is cryptic and non-speaking, is susceptible to being set aside for not demonstrating application of mind (!) (!) . Additionally, non-payment of subsistence allowance during suspension is a serious procedural lapse that can render the disciplinary action invalid (!) (!) (!) . The court also recognizes that even when an alternative remedy exists, it is within the court's discretion to exercise judicial review if the procedural violations are substantial enough to warrant interference (!) (!) . Ultimately, the decision underscores that disciplinary actions must be based on a fair, transparent, and properly reasoned process, and any deviation from these principles invalidates the order of punishment.
Harish Kumar, J. – This Court has heard Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Shashipriya, learned Advocate for the petitioner. The State is represented through Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned Advocate. Mr. Anil Singh, learned Advocate appears for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau.
2. The challenge made in the present writ petition is the order contained in Memo No. 5824 dated 10.10.2018 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2, the Joint Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The grievance has also been raised that the petitioner has not even been extended the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension for the period with effect from 25.04.2016 to 10.10.2018.
3. The factual matrix of the case as culled out from the materials on record reveals that the petitioner was duly appointed as an Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit with additional charge of District Programme Officer on 13.03.2014. While the petitioner was discharging the duty on the post afore noted, in the meanwhile, allegedly while accepting a bribe of Rs.50,000/- from one Bir Bahadur Singh, he was caught red handed, which led to institution of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 54 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7/8/13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. In the aforesaid premise, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau recommended for action against the petitioner under Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code; acting on the recommendation, the Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar vide Memo No. 3105 dated 13.07.2016 placed the petitioner under suspension. Subsequent thereto, a memo of charge was framed under Memo No. 301 dated 27.05.2017 alleging therein that the act of the petitioner of accepting bribe constitutes a grave misconduct under Rule 3(i) of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1976’). Explanation was sought for vide Memo No. 3180 dated 18.07.2017 under the signature of the respondent no. 2; the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and submitted a detailed explanation. In the meanwhile, another supplementary charge sheet vide Memo No. 4162 dated 06.09.2017 was served upon the petitioner and explanation was again sought for, the same was responded by the petitioner, denying all the allegations. Explanation of the petitioner did not find favour and finally the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Memo No. 4927 dated 18.10.2017. The Additional Secretary, Social Welfare Department was made the Enquiry Officer where the Assistant Direcor, Social Welfare Department as the Presenting Officer. The petitioner was served with the show cause along with memo of charge and the supporting documents and directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer.
5. The petitioner entered his appearance and submitted his written defence. It is categorically stated that he has been made a victim of conspiracy hatched by the complainant to take revenge for the show cause issued to his wife, Smt. Poonam Devi, who was found indulged in malpractices while running a Anganbadi Centre No. 55 at Village Katgharwan, Blok-Chausa, District Buxar. The enquiry was finally culminated into submission of the enquiry report to the Joint Secretary (Vigilance) Social Welfare Department. The Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of misconduct in terms with Section 3 of the Rules, 1976.
6. The petitioner was served with the second show cause which was also responded by the petitioner, however, on being not satisfied, the impugned order of dismissal came to be passed under the provisions of Rule 14(xi) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 2005’) by the disciplinary authority.
7. Learned Senior Advocate while assailing the impugned order of dismissa
Procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries is paramount; mere allegations without supporting evidence or adherence to specified rules cannot justify punitive actions.
Disciplinary proceedings quashed for defective charge memo without imputations, documents, witnesses; no departmental evidence or witnesses; perfunctory enquiry report lacking independent reasons and....
A disciplinary enquiry must be based on evidence; mere allegations or FIR production without witness examination cannot substantiate a finding of guilt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
