IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16550 of 2022 ======================================================

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh Son of Rameshwar Singh Resident of Village and P.S.- Sanzauli, District- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.

4. The Additional Collector-cum-Enquiry Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.

5. The Block Development Officer, Vikramganj.

6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Rohtas, Sasaram.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Advocate Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Advocate Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma (Aag3)

Mr. Saroj. Kr. Sharma, A.C. to AAG-3 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 17-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for following relief(s):-

“(i) For setting aside the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer as contained in Letter No. 34 dated 15.06.2018, whereby all the charges against the petitioner were found proved without examination of complainant and other witnesses in support of the charge.

(ii) The petitioner further prays for setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the District Magistrate Rohtas, Sasaram as contained in order no. 16/21-22 dated 29.05.2021, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and was further held ineligible for future empanelment under the government.

(iii) For setting aside the order dated 18.08.2022, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna in Service Appeal No. 72/2021, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal has been dismissed.

(iv) The petitioner further prays that after setting aside the enquiry report as well as order of punishment and appellate order he may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits as he has not been in gainful employment after dismissal from service.

(v) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be deemed entitled to.”

3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was posted as Clerk-cum- Nazir, Block Office Rajpur one FIR bearing Vikramganj P.S. Case No. 91 of 2013 dated 25.04.2013, under Sections 147, 341, 323, 353, and 504 of the Indian penal Code was instituted by Sri Arun Kumar, the Block Development Officer, Vikramganj who was also the controlling officer of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner was granted bail in the criminal case by the Court of Session Judge, Rohtas vide order dated 17.05.2013 passed in A.B.P. No. 1022 of 2013. On the complaint made by the Block Development Officer, Vikramganj, the petitioner was put under suspension vide order No. 11/2013-14 contained in Memo No. 418 dated 07.05.2013 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram.

5. It has further been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a departmental proceeding was directed to be initiated against the petitioner vide order No. 4112/2013-14 dated 04.11.2013 and Memo of charge/(Praptra Ka) was issued and the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally for the charges levelled against him. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner appeared and submitted his detailed reply, wherein he denied all the charges levelled against him.

6. The Block Development Officer-cum-Presenting Officer who was the complainant against the petitioner, submitted his reply vide Letter No. 46 dated 20.01.2014. The petitioner thereafter submitted his rejoinder to the reply on

11.02.2014, submitted by the Block Development Officer-cum-

Presenting Officer.

7. It is further cont