IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.990 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2838 of 2022 ======================================================

Nirmal Kumar Singh ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.

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

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Upendra Mishra, Advocate Mr. Shiya Ram Shahi, Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Sandilya, Advocate Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (3)

Mr. Saroj Kr. Sharma, AC to AAG-3 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

4 10-03-2026 The present appeal has been filed for the following relief:

“1. That the instant Memo of Appeal is being directed against the order and judgment dated 27.08.2024 passed in CWJC NO. 2838 OF 2022 by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, whereby and where under the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.”

2. The order under challenge proceeds on a limited ground that the respondent–State was required to initiate a fresh departmental proceeding in pursuance of paragraph No. 19 of the order dated 06.09.2019 passed in CWJC No. 19318 of 2018, which reads as follows:

“19. It will, however, be open to the disciplinary authority to proceed against the petitioner after giving him reasonable opportunity of at least a fortnight to submit his written statement of defence and thereafter conclude the proceeding thereafter, in accordance with the extant Rules.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the earlier departmental enquiry was set aside by order dated 06.09.2019 on the ground that during the departmental proceeding the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Enquiry Officer initiated a fresh departmental proceeding wherein the petitioner was granted an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence. However, the witnesses were not produced during the second departmental enquiry and the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses.

5. The petitioner had specifically taken this ground in paragraph No. 26 of the writ petition stating that the second departmental enquiry was conducted on the basis of the material and evidence of the earlier enquiry and that no fresh enquiry was actually conducted. Consequently, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of cross-examination. Paragraph No. 26 of the writ petition reads as follows:

“26. That, it is relevant to state here that the present Enquiry officer has given his same opinion on the basis of allegation, statement and testimony taken by the previous Enquiry officer, which is in defiance of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 06.09.2019.”

6. Learned counsel for the State is directed to verify from the records whether the second departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner was based upon the materials forming part of the earlier enquiry proceeding. If necessary, learned counsel for the State shall also produce the original records before this Court.

7. Put up this case on 07.04.2026.

(Sudhir Singh, J)

( Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)

Anushka/-

U