Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1933
PATNA HIGH COURT
PARTHA SARTHY, J
Rameshwar Bhagat – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14304 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh
Due process is essential in disciplinary proceedings, including the examination of witnesses and substantiation of charges.
Headnote:The petitioner sought to quash a punishment order reverting him to the lowest salary scale under the CCA Rules after a departmental proceeding for election code violation. The court found procedural violations regarding witness examination and evidence in the enquiry process, resulting in quashing the punishment and directing full salary payment for the suspension period. The main issue framed was the legality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner for alleged misconduct during the elections. The court reasoned that the enquiry findings were not substantiated by any evidence as required by law, leading to the conclusion that the punishment lacked basis. The order contained in memo no.7765 dated 31.5.2012 is set aside with a direction to the respondents to pay full salary for the period of suspension.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relief sought to quash punishment order. (Para 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding procedural adherence. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court emphasized lack of evidence in departmental enquiry. (Para 18 , 20) |
| 4. decision on punishment due to procedural violations. (Para 21 , 22) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following relief(s) :-
“1. i. For issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the resolution of General Administration Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna contained in memo no. 7765 dated 31.05.12 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary by which the petitioner has been inflicted upon the punishment where the petitioner shall be reverted to the lowest pay scale in his own pay scale.
iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ for commanding and directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension as the salary of the period of suspension except subsistence allowances has not been paid till date even there is no order for withholding the salary of the petitioner for the period on suspension.
ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ /order/direction for which the petitioner is found entitled for.”
3. The relevant facts in brief are that in the year
2009 at the time of the Lok Sabha elections, the petitioner was posted as the Sub-Divisional Officer, Darbhanga Sadar and was also the Assistant Returning Officer. By order dated 17.3.2009, the petitioner was placed under suspension and it was directed that he would be paid suspension allowance as per the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (‘CCA Rules’ in short). The suspension of the petitioner was subsequently revoked.
4. The petitioner was served with the memo of charge on 1.12.2009 which was to the effect that he had given permission for holding rally in clear violation of the mandate of the Election Commission. This was done inspite of the fact that code of conduct for the election was in operation and restrain order had been imposed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Darbhanga from 2.3.2009 to 1.5.2009. 5. The petitioner submitted his reply before the Enquiry Officer denying the charges. The enquiry report was submitted and a copy of the same was provided to the petitioner on 1.9.2010.
6. As directed, the petitioner submitted his response to the enquiry report on 10.4.2012. Thereafter, the respondents came out with the order of punishment contained in memo no.7765 dated 31.5.2012 under the signature of the Joint Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar reverting the petitioner to the lowest salary in his own pay-scale.
7. It is against this order of punishment that the petitioner has preferred the instant writ application for the reliefs as stated herein above.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that while the petitioner was posted as the S.D.O., Darbhanga Sadar, and the process of Parliamentary elections were going on, an application was given by a person before the petitioner for grant of permission for holding meeting of the workers in a school premises. The application was accompanied with a No Objection Certificate from the Principal of school as also forwarding of the concerned B.D.O. It is the case of the petitioner that the District Magistrate, Darbhanga orally directed him to grant permission for the meeting on the said application and as such the petitioner granted permission vide memo no.150 dated 12.3.2009. So far as the issuance of prohibitory orders under section 144 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned, it was submitted that the same having been issued by the petitioner himself and the powers vesting in him, he was not required to get permission from any other authority.
9. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant time there was no bar for use of school premi
