IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4825 of 2022 ======================================================

Sujit Kumar Jha Son of Late Dinesh Jha, Resident of Nayagaon, Police Station-Rayam, Block-Kewati, District-Darbhanga Presently Posted as Jail Superintendent, Aurangabad, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home department, Govt.

of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Additional Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Inspector General (Prison), BIhar, Patna.

4. The Joint Secretary-Cum-Director (Prison), Bihar, Patna.

5. The Deputy Secretary-Cum-Deputy Director (Prison), Bihar, Patna.

6. The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea.

7. The District Magistrate, Katihar.

8. The Superintendent of Police, Katihar.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Venkatesh Kaushik, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nasrul Huda Khan (SC-1)

Mr. Md. Harun Quareshi (AC to SC-1)

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 20-01-2026 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:-

“I. For setting aside the resolution dated 01.11.2021 (Annexure-4) contained in Memo No. 9262 passed by the Joint Secretary-cum-Director (Prison) (Respondent no.4) whereby and whereunder an order of punishment for stoppage of three increment with cumulative effect has been awarded in exercise of power under Rule 14(VI) of the Bihar Govt. Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.

II. For setting aside the resolution dated 30.12.2021 (Annexure-6) contained in Memo No. 10806 passed by the Joint Secretary-cum-Director (Prison) (Respondent No. 4), by which review preferred by the petitioner against the order of aforesaid punishment has been rejected.

III. For grant of any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while posted as Jail Superintendent, Katihar, a raid was conducted by the then District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Katihar on 11.08.2018 in the Jail and some prohibited articles i.e. mobile phone, pen drive, electronic goods, etc. were recovered, and pursuant to the said raid, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide resolution dated 11.02.2019 contained in Memo No. 1226 under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bihar CCA Rules, 2005’). In the said resolution, prapatra - Ka was also served. Senior counsel further submits that an Enquiry Officer was appointed in the said proceeding along with a Presenting Officer, and the said Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 30.06.2020 and reached on the conclusion that the charges alleged were not proved. Senior counsel submits that the said enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, who, upon disagreeing with the said findings, remitted the matter again to the same Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer thereafter, submitted his enquiry report on 18.03.2021, stating that no evidence had been produced by the Presenting Officer in order to prove the charges against the petitioner and, therefore, again concluded that the charges alleged against the petitioner were not proved.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Disciplinary Authority, after receiving the enquiry report, issued a second show-cause notice to the petitioner vide Memo No. 4068 dated 17.05.2021, expressing disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and directed the petitioner to submit his reply within 15 days. In the said show-cause notice, an alle