Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANSHUMAN, J.
Mahesh Kumar S/o Mahendra Prasad Sah - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna –Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1966 of 2022
Decided On : 20-01-2026
Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005—Rules 17(23), 18(2), 18(3) and 32—Rule 824-A of Bihar Police Manual—Imposition of punishment of one black mark equivalent to forfeiture of six months' increment—Superintendent of Police is competent to pass orders in respect of A.S.I./S.I. for suspension, reduction in rank, other major punishments, and minor punishments, except compulsory retirement, removal, or dismissal—Where disciplinary authority disagrees with findings of Enquiry Officer, it must record reasons for such disagreement and afford opportunity to delinquent employee to represent against proposed findings—Disciplinary authority is empowered to record its own findings after assigning reasons for disagreement—In present case, Superintendent of Police has assigned reasons for disagreeing with findings of Enquiry Officer, and same appear to be acceptable—However, no second show-cause notice was issued to petitioner before imposition of punishment—Non-issuance of second show-cause notice amounts to violation of mandatory procedural requirement and Principles of Natural Justice—On this limited ground alone, disciplinary proceeding stands vitiated—Impugned order set aside and liberty granted to disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from stage of issuance of second show-cause notice. (Paras 13.1 to 18)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenged disciplinary action and findings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties' arguments on authority and procedural violations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis on competency and procedural fairness. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's final judgment and procedural directions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing Memo No. 221/Ra.Ka., dated 21.01.2014, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Katihar, whereby the petitioner, who was then working as a Sub-Inspector of Police, was inflicted with the punishment of one black mark equivalent to forfeiture of six months’ increment (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing Memo No. 1201/Sha.Pra., dated 24.09.2021, issued by the Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). Further prayer has been made for grant of all consequential benefits and for passing any other order or orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to the 2009 batch of Sub-Inspector of Police and, while he was posted in Katihar district, a departmental charge was levelled against him alleging that when he was deputed at Saimapur O.P., on 05.07.2013 and 06.07.2013, the Officer-in-Charge of the said outpost informed the Superintendent of Police, Katihar through wireless that the petitioner, after reporting himself sick on 05.07.2013, had left the outpost, as a result of which no officer was available at the outpost. It was further alleged that the petitioner had prior knowledge that the Gram Panchayat Election, 2013, in Katihar district was scheduled to be held on 07.07.2013, and, therefore, action was sought to be taken against him on the charges of indiscipline, dereliction of duty, and being unfit for police service.
4. Learned counsel further submits that on the basis of the said allegations, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 828(c), vide Enquiry No. 2/13. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting a full-fledged departmental proceeding, submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved, and consequently found him not guilty.
5. It is further submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Katihar, while differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, passed the order of punishment of one black mark equivalent to forfeiture of six months’ increment against the petitioner vide Memo No. 221/Ra.Ka., dated 21.01.2014, without assigning any reasons for such disagreement and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea, which was rejected vide Memo No. 1201/Sha.Pra., dated 24.09.2021.
Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two principal contentions before this Hon’ble Court. Firstly, it has been contended that the Superintendent of Police is not the competent disciplinary authority in respect of a Sub- Inspector of Police. Secondly, it has been submitted that for adjudication of the disciplinary proceeding, the provisions of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the CCA Rules, 2005”) are applicable, but violation of Rule 18(3) has been made, i.e. 2nd show cause not issued. Hence, the punishment order is illegal.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 19.01.2023 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 4643 of 2016 (Vijay Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), wherein it was held that the peti
The Superintendent of Police can impose penalties on Sub-Inspectors, but failure to follow due process, including issuing a second show-cause notice, breaches natural justice and invalidates the disc....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings, particularly the requirement to provide an opportunity for representation when the disciplinary au....
Disciplinary action against government employees must comply with statutory provisions, and jurisdictional authority must be respected; lack of proper procedure and reasoning renders proceedings void....
Termination of a government employee without evidence and proper authority violates Article 311 and principles of natural justice.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the provisions of the relevant disciplinary rules and acts, and the penalty imposed must be commensura....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by an authority not competent to do so renders the entire proceeding illegal.
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
