Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RITESH KUMAR, J.
Nutan Kumar Prabhat Son of Late Gauri Shankar Singh - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms Govt. of Bihar, Patna, - Respondent/s
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4696 of 2023
Decided On : 25-02-2026
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 – Rule 17 – Dismissal – Petitioner, a Revenue Karamchari, dismissed from service on allegation that he had received Rs. 2,00,000/- for influencing disposal of Jamabandi cancellation cases – Charge memo must contain statement of imputations of misconduct along with list of documents and list of witnesses proposed to be relied upon by department – Absence of these mandatory requirements renders charge memo defective and vitiates entire disciplinary proceeding – Mere production or reference to documents does not amount to proof of charges – Department must lead oral and documentary evidence and witnesses must be examined before Enquiry Officer to prove allegations – Enquiry report must contain assessment of evidence and reasons for findings on each charge – A report which merely reproduces charges and defence without analysing evidence reflects non-application of mind and cannot be sustained – When witnesses are not examined and complainant is not produced in enquiry, delinquent employee is deprived of opportunity to cross-examine them, which results in violation of principles of natural justice – Disciplinary as well as appellate authorities are required to consider defence of delinquent employee and pass a speaking order – Orders passed without assigning reasons or without considering defence are legally unsustainable – Order of dismissal set aside – Petitioner held entitled to salary, allowances and pensionary benefits – Writ Petition allowed. (Paras 11, 23, 24, 25 and 28)
Constitution of India – Article 226/227 – Judicial review in disciplinary matters – High Court under Article 226/227 is entitled to interfere when finding of fact is based on no evidence – If in every case where no valid evidence is laid at enquiry proceeding, there is a remand made, it would be offering premium to negligence of management/disciplinary authority and condoning levity with which departmental enquiry was conducted – It is disciplinary authority, who appoints Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and it is expected that Presenting Officer would be well versed in procedures and also be informed in the manner in which evidence has to be laid before Enquiry Officer, to prove misconduct, alleged against a delinquent employee – In a disciplinary enquiry proceeding, standard of proof is preponderance of probability as distinguished from proof beyond reasonable doubt, as would be required in a criminal prosecution – However, if there is no evidence laid at enquiry, there is no question of any preponderance of probability being drawn to find allegations proved nor can delinquent be penalised on the basis of peremptory finding without any valid evidence. (Para 25)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bribery allegation via disputed cheque transfer. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. charge memo requires imputation, documents, witnesses list. (Para 6 , 11) |
| 3. enquiry demands departmental evidence and witness examination. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. documents need witness proof; enquiry officer independent. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. state defends enquiry based on preliminary findings. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 6. procedural violations vitiate entire disciplinary process. (Para 23) |
| 7. no evidence warrants quashing dismissal; grant backwages, pension. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.12.2018 contained in Memo No.189 passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby he has dismissed the petitioner from the post of Revenue Karamchari, Circle- Bairiyah, West Champaran with effect from his date of suspension i.e. 29.04.2017 and the order passed in appeal dated 17.01.2023 in Service Appeal No. 92 of 2022 issued by the respondent no.2 whereby he has affirmed the order of dismissal dated 6.12.2018, by modifying the effect of the said order from the date of its issuance i.e. 06.12.2018 instead of 29.04.2017.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that on 10.01.1986 the petitioner was appointed as a Revenue Karamchari, Circle-Madhubani and thereafter was transferred to Yogapatti circle in 1991, from there he was transferred to different circles/anchals and finally again he was transferred to Bairiyah circle/anchal in the year, 2016. While the petitioner was discharging his duties as Revenue Karamchari, Nautan Anchal, a complaint was filed by one Binod Kumar Singhania before District Grievances Redressal Officer, West Champaran with an allegation that in order to settle two cases i.e. Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 33 of 2015-16 and Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 53 of 2015 pending in the court of DCLR, the petitioner is demanding some gratification from the complainant, on the pretest that he has already been paid Rs. 2,00,000/- from the opposite party. In support of his complaint, Binod Kumar Singhania enclosed certain documents like bank statement of Om Prakash Singhania showing transfer of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the accounts of the petitioner on 29.11.2016, death certificate of Om Prakash Singhania as well as a Sanha instituted by Shanti Devi before the SHO Bettiah Town PS in which she had stated that cheque bearing No. 162295 has been misused.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that it is further case of the petitioner that the Public Grievance Redressal Officer, upon receipt of the aforesaid complaint, vide letter no. 174 dated 20.03.2017 called for a report from the District Magistrate, Bettiah, who directed the Additional Collector to enquire into the allegations. The Additional Collector vide Memo No. 813 dated 03.04.2017 issued notice to the petitioner, directing him to appear on 06.04.2017 and in compliance thereof, the petitioner appeared on the said date and tried to submit his written explanation, but the same was not accepted, therefore the petitioner sent a letter dated 13.04.2017 to the District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah wherein he specifically stated that the Additional Collector did not accept his written explanation and as such he has apprehension that he will not get justice before the said authority. In the said letter, the petitioner had explained in detail that he has personal relations with Om Prakash Singhania and on account of said relation earlier also some monetary transaction had taken place between them and since the wife of Om Prakash Singhania was not well, for which he required some money for getting her treated, as such the petitioner arranged the said money from his friend Ajay Giri, who gave Rs. 200000/- as loan, which was subsequently given by the petitioner to Om Prakash Singhania and in order to refund the said amount, the said Om Prakash Singhania issued a
Disciplinary proceedings quashed for defective charge memo without imputations, documents, witnesses; no departmental evidence or witnesses; perfunctory enquiry report lacking independent reasons and....
The absence of a witness list in a disciplinary charge memo violates procedural fairness, rendering the proceedings invalid, necessitating adherence to natural justice principles.
Procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries mandates adherence to statutory requirements, including the presentation of evidence and opportunity for defense, failure of which invalidates the inquir....
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
