Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PURNENDU SINGH, J.
Navin Kumar Singh Son of Late Satyadeo Singh - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna (Bihar) – Respondent
CIVIL REVIEW No.366 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9015 of 2023
Decided On : 13-02-2026
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Review application – Review by its very nature contemplates reconsideration of same subject by same Judge or Judges while an intra court Appeal is heard by another Division Bench of this Court – Section 114 of CPC creates right to make application for review under certain conditions and Order 47 provides for mode, manner and circumstances under which review petition can be made, heard and determined – Procedure is meant to advance justice and as such cannot be treated as mandatory procedure, however, same should be followed as far as possible, keeping in view cause of justice – Power under Article 226 of Constitution of India is exercised by High Court in its equity jurisdiction and it has to do equity to parties and to do complete justice to them and its power of review cannot be limited only in terms of Section 114 or Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC – By parity of reasoning, Order 47 and Rule 5 ipso facto would not be attracted in writ proceeding, whereas Civil Court trying a suit (or High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction) is bound by provision of Order 47 Rule 5 of CPC – Power to review is taken recourse to guide High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction – When abuse of process of law comes into play and exercise of power is in total disregard of all canons of justice and violative of acceptable norms and manifestly exposes clear abuse of process of law, Writ Court cannot ignore it. (Paras 20 to 23)
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 – Rules 16 and 17 – Constitution of India – Article 311(1) – Bihar Police Manual 1978 – Rules 825 (C) and 656 – Demotion in rank by way of penalty – Charge-memo having not been approved by Director General of Police, who is competent Authority and State having not delegated to D.I.G., who has served charge-memo to petitioner in want of approval permitting conduct of departmental proceeding is against mandate of Article 311 of Constitution of India and prescribed Rules of Bihar Police Manual and in accordance with Rule 16 of Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 – Charge-memo under signature of Deputy Inspector General of Police, is vitiated in eye of law – As a consequence of initiation of disciplinary proceeding without approval of charge-memo, entire disciplinary proceeding including penalty order issued by Director General of Police, hereby quashed and set aside. (Paras 37 and 39)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of truck seizure and proceedings history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. charge memo lacks proper service and approval. (Para 6 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. dig competent under bihar police manual. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. review power under article 226 expansive. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. rule 16 cca mandates authority sanction. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. unapproved charge memo vitiates inquiry. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. proceedings quashed sans competent initiation. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Samir Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr. P.K.Verma, learned AAG 3 along with Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, learned AC to AAG 3 for the State.
2. The present review application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review of order dated 14.11.2024 passed in CWJC No. 9015 of 2023 (Navin Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.)
3. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was posted as S.H.O.-cum-Inspector, Chapra Muffasil, constables of the said police station apprehended a sand loaded Truck from No Entry Area of the Town, the petitioner was informed and a letter in this regard was sent to the concerned Mining Officer and the District Transport Officer (DTO). Just after two days of the incident, the truck owner made a complaint against the constables of the said Police Station before the Superintendent of Police, Saran, upon which the inquiry was initiated and the constables were found guilty but the petitioner was not found guilty in spite of that the authority concerned initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner and in the said departmental proceeding, the petitioner was found guilty and order of penalty was inflicted by which the petitioner was demoted to the post of Sub Inspector. Against the order of punishment, the petitioner filed CWJC no. 9015 of 2023 and this Court vide order dated 14.11.2024, in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Bharat Singh & Ors. vs State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 1988 (4) SCC 534 did not interfere with the order of punishment in absence of any evidence in support of the reliefs and the pleadings made in the writ petition.
4. The facts and the information as per the different paragraphs of the writ petition are being reproduced hereinafter as follows :
1. That present writ application is being preferred before this Hon'ble Court for the following relief(s):-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents to quash the order dated 02.11.2022 containing Memo No. 668 issued by respondent no. 3 whereby imposed a punishment of reverting the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector for five years with cumulative effect.
(ii) For any other relief(s) for, which the Petitioner is found entitled in the eye of law
02. That the Substantial question of law involved in the present writ application as follows.
(I) Whether memo of charge has framed against petitioner accordance with law and copy has been served to him?
(ii) Whether departmental proceeding was conducted by the conducting officer accordance with law?
(iii), Whether show cause asked by authority after supply him necessary documents for show cause?
(iv) Whether enquiry witnesses examined by the conducting officer during proceeding are formal witnesses?
(v) Whether complainant and writer constable of the police station as witnesses examined by the conducting officer during proceeding who are important witnesses?
(vi) Whether at the time of ask show cause from any document relevant to the proceeding against petitioner was served to him?
(vii) Whether impugned order passed by the authority after proper consider the show cause of the petitioner?
(viii) Whether respondent authorities are harass the petitio
Charge memo in disciplinary proceedings must be approved by the disciplinary authority; lack thereof renders entire proceedings vitiated ab initio, warranting quashing without remand in peculiar circ....
Disciplinary proceedings must be approved by the competent authority; failure to do so renders the proceedings void.
Disciplinary proceedings against government servants must be initiated with proper authorization from the competent authority, failing which the proceedings are rendered void.
The Superintendent of Police is authorized to issue charge-sheets and initiate disciplinary proceedings against subordinate officers, and such proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural jus....
Disciplinary proceedings require oral evidence for proving charges; failure to provide a witness list vitiates the inquiry, emphasizing adherence to natural justice standards.
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
