SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 633

PATNA HIGH COURT
Arun Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CWJC-18137/2023



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 18137 of 2023

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

Arun Kumar Yadav Son of Late Narayan Yadav, Presently Posted as

Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat - Gawalpara, Block - Chhatapur

District - Sapaul. Permanent resident of Village - Litiyahi P.S. Pipra, District -

Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar

Patna.

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa.

4. District Magistrate, Supaul.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer cum Enquiry Officer, Triveniganj, District -

Supaul.

6. The Block Development Officer, Marauna District - Supaul.

7. The Block Development Officer Chhatapur, Distt. - Supaul.

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr Naresh Kumar Mehta, Advocate

For the Respondent/s : Ms Archana Meenakshee, GP VI with

M/s Rana Veer Prawar, Harish Singh, Advocates

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 06-02-2026

Heard the parties.

2 The present writ petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:

“… … … for issuance of writ of

certiorari and mandamus or any other

appropriate writ (s)/order (s)/direction (s)

commanding the respondent authorities to set

aside the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the

Commissioner, Koshi Diision, Saharsa in Srvice

Appeal Case No 97 of 2015 in the light of order

##PAGE2##

Patna High Court CWJC No.18137 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026

2/6

dated 27.02.2015 passed in CWJC No 3185/2015

by this Hon’ble Court as well as order dated

28.06.2010 contained in Memo No 268-2 by the

DM, Supaul whereby and where under two

increments were withheld on the basis of

departmental enquiry report dated 12.03.2010

conducted by the SDO, Triveniganj -cum-

enquiry officer without issuance of show cause

notice which is mandatory in the eye of law

ignoring the facts and circumstances of this case

and further prayer is to provide all subsequent

consequential benefits including the period in

question of two years may be taken into account

in the ACP benefit and to grant any other

relief/reliefs to the petitioner which the

petitioner may be found entitled to get in the eye

of law.”

3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary on 25.07.2000

and since then he was working as the same. While posted at

Raghopur Block, the petitioner was transferred on 30.06.2009

from Raghopur to Marauna Block but was relieved on 04.07.2009

and on the next day, he gave his joining at Marauna.

Subsequently, vide Memo No 414-2 dated 17.07.2009 issued

under the signature of the Block Development Officer, Marauna,

he, along with others, was deputed to hand over charge w.e.f.

18.07.2009 to 23.07.2009. It has further been contended that

though the petitioner was present to hand over the charges to his

successor but till 08.08.2009, neither his successor took charge nor

the Block Development Officer, Raghopur relieved him and since

##PAGE3##

Patna High Court CWJC No.18137 of 2023 dt.06-02-2026

3/6

his successor was not taking over charge from him, vide Memo No

1233-2 dated 06.08.2009 issued under the signature of Block

Development Officer, Raghopur, an order was issued to Shri

Shyam Sundar Yadav, who was posted as Panchayat Secretary at

Parmanandpur, to take over charge from the petitioner. It is further

contended on behalf of the petitioner that vide Letter No 1276

dated 12.08.2009 issued under the signature of Block

Development Officer, Raghopur addressed to the District

Magistrate, Supaul, it was intimated that the petitioner was

relieved from Marauna Block and was directed to report at

Raghopur where he gave his joining on 18.07.2009 but he is

absent thereafter and is not responding to the telephonic calls also,

in those circumstances, appropriate action be taken against him.

Accordingly, vide Memo No 320-2 dated 31.08.2009 issued under

the signature of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top