IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1680 of 2018

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7006 of 2014

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

1.

The Chairman Cum The Appellate Authority Bihar Public Service

Commission, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna through its Secretary

3.

The Members of the Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.

4.

The Secretary-Cum-the Disciplinary Authority, Bihar Public Service

Commission, Bihar, Patna.

5.

The Joint Secretary-Cum-Inquiring Officer, Bihar Public Service

Commission, Bihar, Patna.

6.

The Officer-on-Special Duty, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bihar,

Patna. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

Meena Pratap Wife of Late Bhanu Pratap Resident of Mohalla-Flat No. A-4-

B, Alakhraj Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Police Station-Budha

Colony, District Patna.

2.

Apurva Daughter of Late Bhanu Pratap Resident of Mohalla-Flat No. A-4-B,

Alakhraj Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Police Station-Budha Colony,

District Patna.

3.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary,General Administration

Department. .. ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s

:

Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, Advocate

For the Pvt. Respondent/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 13-07-2022

Instant appeal has been filed by the Bihar Public Service

Commission (for short “BPSC”). The appellants have questioned

the validity of the order of the learned Single Judge dated

29.06.2018 passed in CWJC No. 7006 of 2014. Deceased-Bhanu

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1680 of 2018 dt.13-07-2022

2/7

Pratap who was working as an Analyst Programmer with the

appellants was subjected to parallel proceedings and in the

disciplinary proceedings it was concluded in imposition of penalty

of dismissal from service on 18.03.2013. In criminal proceedings it

is stated to have abated on account of death of the deceased-

employee on 23.10.2017. Thus, the legal heir of the deceased-

employee Bhanu Pratap have come on record in the writ petition.

Deceased-employee was charge-sheeted on 03.05.2012

on 10 charges. He is stated to have submitted his explanation.

Disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the explanation and

proceeded to appoint an inquiring and presenting officer. The

inquiring officer submitted his report on 30.08.2012 while holding

charge no. 1, 2 and 9 were proved, the remaining charges were not

proved. On receipt of inquiring officer’s report the disciplinary

authority issued a second show cause notice on 21.09.2012 for

which the deceased-employee is stated to have submitted his

explanation on 25.10.2012. Based on these material information

the disciplinary authority proceeded to impose the penalty of

dismissal from service on 18.03.2013. Deceased employee feeling

aggrieved by the order of penalty of dismissal preferred appeal and

it was rejected on 14.11.2013. Hence, the deceased-employee

preferred CWJC No. 7006 of 2014.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1680 of 2018 dt.13-07-2022

3/7

On 29.06.2018, leaned Single Judge allowed the CWJC

No. 7006 of 2014, thus, the present appeal by the BPSC.

Learned counsel for the BPSC vehemently contended

that the learned Single Judge has committed error in holding that

the charges leveled against the deceased-employee are vague and

inadequate. It is further submitted t