IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.493 of 2022 ======================================================

Umesh Chandra Upadhyay Son of Late Ayodhyanath Upadhyay Resident of Sai Nilyam Apartment, Police Colony, Police Station- Gardanibagh, town and District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Additional Secretary to the Government Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Additional Secretary to the Government of Bihar Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Officer on Special Duty Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.

6. The District Magistrate Patna.

7. The Additional District Magistrate (Supply) Patna.

8. The Sub-divisional Officer Danapur, District- Patna.

9. The Officer-in-Charge-cum-Station House Officer Danapur Police Station, District- Patna.

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, Adv Mr. Makardhwaj Upadhyay, Adv For the State : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad (AAG-5)

Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG-5 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 24-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“(1) For quashing the order issued under the signature of the Officer on Special Duty, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna under Memo No. 4895, dated 24.12.2020, whereby and whereunder, on wrong assumptions of facts and law, punishment of stoppage og 5% of the pension amount of the petitioner for 5 (five) years under the provisions of Rule 43 (B) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 has been imposed upon the petitioner on the ground that the disciplinary authority in disagreement with the report of the Enquiry Officer has found that the petitioner has failed in performance of his duty.

(ii) For holding that the order inflicting punishment of withholding of 5% of the pension amount of the petitioner for 5 (five) years having been passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna is without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to continue inasmuch as the respondent Officer on Special Duty is not the disciplinary/appointing authority of the petitioner and no punishment can be inflicted upon a delinquent employee by an officer, who is not his disciplinary/appointing authority.

(iii) For holding that the order inflicting punishment upon the petitioner is against the procedure enshrined in Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'CCA Rules'), inasmuch as a definite procedure has been prescribed which is required to be adopted by the disciplinary authority where he disagrees with the findings and conclusion of the Enquiry Officer of the departmental proceeding. That having not been adopted in letter and spirit, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is bad in law and fit to be set aside.

(iv) For holding that rule 18 (2) of the CCA Rules prescribes that the disciplinary authority after receipt of the enquiry report as per rule 17 or rule 18 (1) of the CCA Rules, if disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on any charge, would record his reasons for such disagreement and records its own finding on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose and further the disciplinary authority would forward copy of the enquiry report together with the reasons of disagreement and his finding to the delinquent employee and seek explanation to such reasons