SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 1549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR, J.
Shankar Kumar Jha @ Shankar Jha Son of Late Uday Nandan Jha  - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police - Respondent  
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17097 of 2019 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6524, 7335 of 2023
Decided on : 11-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Prashant Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Raju Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3 Ms. Divya Verma, AC to AAG-3 Mr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, AC to AAG-3 Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, GP-5 Ms. Shalini, AC to GP-5 Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-8 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to SC-8

Promotion cannot be denied if no charge memo is pending against an employee; actions taken on procedural flaws may be considered arbitrary and illegal.

Headnote:(A) Bihar Police Manual - Rule 853 A - Departmental proceedings - Promotion - The petitioner sought promotion to Deputy Superintendent of Police, being exonerated in Disciplinary Proceeding No. 33 of 2016; however, the recommendation was recalled, and the petitioner placed under suspension. Procedural defects were evident in the handling of the charge memo and the retrospective suspension, causing prejudice to the petitioner. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 12, 30)

(B) Abuse of power - The misuse of authority is an actionable issue where due process has not been observed, contributing to a decision reflective of malice and arbitrariness. (Paras 17, 28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, promoted from Inspector to DSP, faced departmental proceedings that led to his exoneration. However, subsequent orders reviewed and canceled his promotion unfairly, leading to litigation.

Findings of Court:
The court found the Departmental Promotion Committee and DG Board acted in violation of law, thus restoring the petitioner's promotion.

Issues: The court addressed whether disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were pending during promotion consideration and legality of the review of exoneration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the promotion was valid as no disciplinary charge was pending at the time of recommendation, and procedural flaws rendered subsequent actions void.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; promotion restored.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH KUMAR, J.

1. All these three writ petitions filed by the petitioner are inextricably liked with each other, hence they are being heard together and disposed off by this common order.

2. The writ petition bearing CWJC No. 6524 of 2023 was filed seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the concerned respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as, “DSP”) from the rank of Police Inspector on the ground of his exoneration in the Departmental Proceeding No. 33 of 2016, with all consequential benefits with effect from the date when it was found due.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, vide Memo No. 112 dated 12.02.2024, issued under the signature of Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur exonerating the petitioner in Disciplinary Proceeding No. 33 of 2016 has been reviewed, by exercising the power under Rule 853 A of the BIHAR POLICE MANUAL and further directed the Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur to re-conduct the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order, aforenoted, to the extent it affects the right and entitlement of the petitioner has questioned the same by filing an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2024, which came to be allowed on 26.11.2024.

4. Whereas, the CWJC No. 17097 of 2019, came to be filed seeking quashing of the resolution dated 12.03.2019, issued by the Director General’s Board (in short, “DG Board”), whereby the recommendation made by the Police Headquarter, Bihar, Patna in Letter No. 4841/XP dated 30.06.2016 for promotion to the petitioner from the post of Police Inspector to the rank of DSP, which has been acted upon, has been recalled. Further the Memo No. 626 dated 14.10.2022, issued by the Police Headquarter under the signature of Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna whereby, the petitioner was placed under suspension retrospectively with effect from 28.07.2022, is put to challenge by filing CWJC No. 7335 of2023.

5. The relevant facts leading to institution of all these writ petitions, in brief, are that, while the petitioner was working as an Inspector and as per the gradation list of Inspector cadre, the promotion to the rank of DSP was due; the Zonal Board headed by Zonal Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Zone, scrutinized the service particulars of those Inspectors, whose promotion was under zone of consideration, including the petitioner. A meeting of the Board of Director General was convened for promotion from the post of Police Inspector to the rank of DSP on 27.06.2016. The petitioner was found fit for promotion and accordingly, a recommendation was sent to the Home (Police) Department, Bihar, Patna vide Letter No. 4841/XP dated 30.06.2016. In pursuant, thereto, a DPC was convened on 17.11.2016, and consequently, promotion was granted to the petitioner in the rank of DSP. A notification to this effect under Memo No. 9399 dated 30.11.2016 was issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary to the Government. Later on, the services to the post of DSP was also confirmed with effect from 30.11.2017.

6. Shortly after promotion to the post of DSP, on 04.05.2017, the concerned Superintendent of Police communicated and sent a memo of charge to the Enquiry Officer for conducting departmental proceeding and accordingly, the Enquiry Officer served the charged memo to the petitioner on 11.05.2017 vide Annexure-8/P-41.

7. The Enquiry Officer after conclusion of the proceeding, sent the file to the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-9 dated 12.07.2018. Since at the point of time, the petitioner was working as the DSP, so the file was sent to the Home Department. On receipt of the file, a query was made vide order as contained in Memo No. 7583 dated 29.08.2018, from the Director Gen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top