IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15101 of 2021 ====================================================== Kailash Prasad Son of Haricharan Prasad Resident of Ward No. 02 Village - Pipra, P.S. - Barauli, District Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Home Principal Secretary Police Department. 2. The Accountant General through the In-charge Officer, Finance (A.G.), Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department (Police Branch), Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Additional General of Police (Head Quarter). 7. The Inspector General of Police, Head Quarter. 8. IG, Special Branch-cum-Conducting Officer, 9. DIG, Patna. 10. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar For the Respondent/s : Md. N.H. Khan (SC1) Ms. Babita Kumar, AC to SC-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-State. 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs : Patna High Court CWJC No.15101 of 2021 dt.27-08-2025 2/9 (i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Memo No. 3859 dated 8.6.2020 issued under the signature of the Special Secretary, Home Department (Police Branch), Bihar, Patna whereby and where under the petitioner has been awarded major punishment in form of withholding of three increments of pay with cumulative effect without following the procedure for awarding of major punishment as stipulated under Rule-17 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. (ii) For further quashing of the order of confirmation passed against the memorial presented by the petitioner against the award of major punishment vide Memo No. 8940 dated 31.12.2020 issued under the signature of the Special Secretary, Home Department (Police Branch), Bihar, Patna. (iii) And for any such other reliefs for which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. 3. The fact of the case is that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 26.04.2016, one occurrence has occurred in Hotel Panache situated nearby Gandhi Maidan in Patna. A raid was conducted there and it was found that during that period, some customers Patna High Court CWJC No.15101 of 2021 dt.27-08-2025 3/9 of hotel have indulged in consumption of liquor. The persons were caught hold and Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 147 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 47A/53B/63 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act has been registered. After lodging of the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner being Supervisor Officer allegedly not supervised the matter properly. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which has been replied by him. Subsequently, on 04.10.2016, the petitioner has been served with memo of charge vide memo No. 124 in the form of Form-K. No list of witnesses mentioned in the above charge sheet. On 18.09.2019, the enquiry officer submitted its eqnuiry report, vide Annexure-9. Subsequently, the second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which has been replied by him and vide order dated 8.06.2020 (Annexure-11), the disciplinary authority issued punishment order of stoppage of three increments of pay with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred memorial before the Hon’ble Chief Minister through the Department of Home (Police Branch) against the said order of punishment, which has also been rejected vide order dated 31.12.2020 (Annexure-13) and hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet, which has been issued to the petitioner, there were Patna High Court CWJC No.15101 of 2021 dt.27-08-2025 4/9 no list of witnesses, has been given along with the charge sheet, which is violation of the Bihar Framing of Articles of Charge Against Government Servant Regulations, 2017, which is mandatory provision. Hence, the order of punishment based on such charge sheet is liable to be set aside. He further submits that during course of enquiry, six witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer. However, opportunity of cross-examination of those witnesses were not given to the petitioner and their statements were recorded on the date they appeared before the enquiry officer, Therefore Rules 17(14) and 17(15) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 have been violated. He further submits that the order of punishment is not a speaking order. No reason has been assigned as to why the reply to the second show cause filed by the petitioner has not been discussed. The order rejecting review dated 31.12.2020 (Annexure-P/13) is also non-speaking order. 5. Reliance has been placed by the counsel in the judgments passed in the cases of Raj Kumar Vrs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2024(2) BLJ 499, Arvind Alok Vrs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2025 (2) BLJ 134, Roop Singh Negi Vrs. State of Punjab reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570 and Dr. Shiv Dayal Verma Vrs. The State of Bihar Patna High Court CWJC No.15101 of 2021 dt.27-08-2025 5/9 and Ors. reported in 2019(3) P.L.J.R. 979. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-State opposes the arguments raised by the counsel and submits that the departmental proceeding was conducted as per rules and regulations. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend but to fail to provide evidence to rebut the allegations. Therefore, the enquiry officer rightly arrived at the conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are duly proved and on the basis of said, the disciplinary authority has rightly passed the order of punishment. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition as well as the counter affidavit submitted by the respondents-State. 8. Perusal of the charge memo issued to the petitioner clearly shows that along with the charge memo no list of witnesses was prepared nor provided to the petitioner. Perusal of the enquiry report further shows that during course of enquiry, the statements of six witnesses were recorded by the enquiry officer. However, the enquiry report further shows that though the statements of six witnesses were recorded by the enquiry officer but there is no material available with the enquiry report which shows that any opportunity of cross- Patna High Court CWJC No.15101 of 2021 dt.27-08-2025 6/9 examination of those witnesses was given to the petitioner. 9. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce the allegations made against the petitioner in the charge memo, which reads thus: 3- vij iqfyl egkfuns kd] vijk/k vuqla/kku ” foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk us leh{kk ds nkSjku ik;k fd ;s iukl gksVy esa Nkikekjh ds nkSjku ojh; iqfyl inkf/kdkjh ds :i eas “kkfey FksA buds }kjk Nkikekjh ds nkSjku fuEufyf[kr visf{kr dkjZokbZ vius v/khuLFk iqfyl inkf/kdkfj;ksa ls ugha djk;h x;h ftlds dkj.k vfHk;kstu i{k detksj gqvk ,oa vfHk;qDrksa dks ykHk feyk%& (A) ?kVukLFky dk QksVksxzkQh@fofM;ksxzkQh ugha djk;h x;hA (B) ftl “kjkc ,oa vU; lkexzh dks iukl gksVy ls tCr dh x;h mldk mlh le; tIrh&lwph ugha cuok;h x;h cfYd dy gksdj rFkkdfFkr tIrh lwph ij xokgksa dk gLrk{kj fy;k x;kA (C) tIr fd;s x, CySd MkWx] fVªiy xksYM fjtoZ fOgLdh dk mRiknu dsUnz ds Hk.Mkj ls fdl gkWylsyj ,oa fjVsyj dks mDr cSp dk cksry fn;k x;k rFkk fjVsyj }kjk fdl xzkgd dks cspk x;k] dk tkap ugha djk;k x;kA (D) CyM lSEiy dks cM+s ykijokg <+ax ls Fkkuk Lrj ij j[kk x;k vkSj 13 fnuksa ds ckn tkap gsrq fof/k&iz;ksx kkyk Hkstk x;kA bls ” buds }kjk xaHkhjrk ls ugha fy;k x;kA (E) tc vfHk;qDrksa dks vYdksgy ds izHkko ugha jgus dk izfrosnu fpfdRld }kjk fn;k x;k rks buds }kjk viuh ns[k&js[k esa Patna High Court CWJC No.15101 of 2021 dt.27-08-2025 7/9 esfMdy cksMZ ugha djk;k x;kA (F) czsFk ,ukykbZtj ;krk;kr esa miyC/k jgus ds ckotwn mldks buds }kjk mi;ksx esa ugha yk;k x;kA (G) izkFkfedh vfHk;qDr gksVy ekfyd dks ?kVukLFky ij ekStwn jgus ds ckotwn fxjQ~rkjh ugha djk;h x;hA (H) buds }kjk lgh <+ax ls ojh; iqfyl inkf/kdkjh ds usr`RodrkZ ds :i esa fuokZg ugha fd;k x;kA 10. Plain reading of the said allegations clearly shows that there were eight allegations made against the petitioner in the charge memo. The enquiry officer though recorded the statements of six witnesses during course of enquiry, however, without discussing the evidence, as adduced by the presenting officer, the enquiry officer has given his finding which is also required to be reproduced herein: bl rjg lapkyu ds dze esa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds izn kksZa] lkf{k;ksa ds c;ku ,oa ” mijksDr rF;ksa ls vipkjh Jh dSyk k izlkn] ” rRdkfyu iqfyl mik/kh{kd] uxj] iVuk] lEizfr iqfyl mik/kh{kd] fc0lS0iq0&03] cks/kx;k ds fo:) xkW/kh eSnku Fkkuk dkaM laa0&147@16] fn0&26-04-2016] /kkjk 47¼,½@53¼ch½@63 fcgkj mRikn ¼lalks/ku½ vf/kfu;e&2016 esa vfHk;kstu i{k dks visf{kr etcwrh nsus gsrq visf{kr dkjZokbZ djus esa f kfFkyrk cjrus ds fy, dkaM ds ” vuqla/kkudrkZ ,oa ftyk Lrj ds vU; iqfyl inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk buds fo:) Hkh yxk;s x;s&vkjksiksa dh iqf’V gksrh gSA buds cpko esa ,slk dksbZ rF; ugha gS ftlls buds Patna High Court CWJC No.15101 of 2021 dt.27-08-2025 8/9 fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dk [k.Mu gks lds vkSj ;g lafpdk lacaf/kr lHkh dkxtkrksa ,oa nks izfr esa eUrO; ds lkFk layXu dj vxzrj dkjZokbZ gsrq okil dh tkrh gSA 11. Perusal of the above mentioned allegations made against the petitioner in the charge memo as well as the finding as referred herein above by the enquiry officer, further shows that without discussing the evidence, as adduced by the presenting officer upon each and every allegation, the enquiry officer has arrived at the conclusion that all the allegations made against the petitioner are duly proved. Thus, it is also clear that the enquiry officer without scrutinizing the evidence mechanically arrived at the conclusion that the charges/allegations made against the petitioner are duly proved. 12. Taking into consideration the above materials available on record and the discussions made above, it is quite clear that in this case along with the charge memo, no list of witnesses were prepared nor provided to the petitioner Therefore, there is a clear cut violation of Rule 17 (3) of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. It is also clear that during course of enquiry, six witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer. However, opportunity of cross-examination of those witnesses were also not provided to the petitioner. It is also clear that without Patna High Court CWJC No.15101 of 2021 dt.27-08-2025 9/9 discussing the evidence on record with regard to the each allegation made against the petitioner, the enquiry officer mechanically recorded his finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are duly proved. Even after the reply of show cause submitted by the petitioner while passing the order of punishment, the disciplinary authority has not considered those aspects nor the authority, who decided the memorial at the time of deciding the memorial of the petitioner, considered this aspect. In the light of the above, both the impugned orders dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure-11) and 31.12.2020 (Annexure-13) are liable to be set aside. 13. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. 14. Accordingly, both the impugned orders dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure-11) and 31.12.2020 (Annexure-13) are hereby set aside. The petitioner is entitled to get entire consequential benefits including his promotion and also arrears of his salary. shailendra/- (Arvind Singh Chandel , J) AFR/NAFR NA CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 29.08.2025 Transmission Date NA