IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18908 of 2021 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Ranjan Son of Sakaldeo Yadav, Resident of Village - Shankerbigha, P.S.- Sakurabad, Distt.- Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police Bihar Patna. 2. The Director General of Police Sardar Patel Bhwan Bailey Road Bihar Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police Magadh Range Gaya. 4. The Addl. Director General of Police Bajat/Appeal, Sardar Patel Bhwan Police Head Quarter Patna. 5. The Senior Superintendent of Police Gaya. 6. The Sub Divisional Police Officer Wazirganj Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kumar No1 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR CAV JUDGMENT Date : 18-01-2025 Heard Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Kumar No. 1, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Advocate for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as contained in Memo No. 5840 dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect; with a further Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 2/22 direction that the petitioner shall be entitled to get only subsistence allowance for the period during suspension. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the order passed by the Appellate Authority as contained in Memo No. 689 dated 28.08.2021, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. 3. The necessary facts, as culled out from the materials available on record, are that the petitioner was duly appointed as a Sub Inspector in the year 2009. While he was posted as Station House Officer, Fatehpur Police Station in the district of Gaya on 01.08.2018, an FIR has been instituted based upon the written report of the ASI, Raghubir Sahani for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The written report, as afore noted, discloses the commission of an offence that in course of patrolling the informant, Raghubir Sahani intercepted two motorcycles bearing registration No. BR02T-1048 and JH02AD-3837 and apprehended three persons. In course of search, altogether 61 litres of country made mahua liquor was recovered leading to institution of the FIR and the seizure of the illicit wine and the motorcycles. Just two days after the occurrence, the SDPO, Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 3/22 Wazirganj wrote a letter to the SSP, Gaya stating therein that one unknown person had sent photographs of three motorcycles standing in the premises of Fatehpur Police Station bearing its registration Nos. BR02T-5703, JH02AD-3837 and BR02T-1048 were seized and the petitioner, being the SHO of the said Police Station, is managing to release the motorcycle bearing No. BR02T-5703. When, in this regard the SDPO has made query to the petitioner he stated that the said motorcycle has not been seized in connection with any crime and if that would be so, necessary amendment shall be made. Statement of the petitioner did not find satisfactory and the action of the petitioner was suspected by the SDPO, Wazirganj; and as such the SDPO physically enquired the matter but did not find the motorcycle bearing registration No. BR02T-5703. 4. In the aforesaid premise, the SDPO, Wazirganj recommended for disciplinary action against the petitioner. Based upon the aforesaid letter recommending for disciplinary action, the SSP. Gaya vide district order contained in Memo No. 7649 dated 05.08.2018 put the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect with a further direction that the petitioner shall not be posted as SHO at any Police Station for further 10 years. 5. Narrating the allegation as levelled by the SDPO, Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 4/22 Wazirganj, a memo of charge was duly prepared and served to the petitioner vide Memo No. 4046 dated 10.08.2018 with a direction to the petitioner to submit a show cause reply within a week. In compliance thereof, the petitioner had submitted his show cause on 20.08.2018 denying the allegation as levelled in the memo of charge with a clear statement that in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 217/2018 only two motorcycles and 61 litres of country made liquor were seized by the ASI, Raghbir Sahani. So far the allegation with respect to third motorcycle is concerned, it was neither seized by any police official of the police station nor it was seized by the petitioner. So far the WhatsApp image is concerned, the premises of the Police Station is a public place; any one can park his vehicle and after taking photograph of the same, send it to any officer and thereafter may take it away. The third motorcycle, in question, is not a subject matter of any prosecution case. 6. On submission of the show cause by the petitioner, a comment has also been sought for from the SDPO, Wazirganj, who submitted his reply raising suspicion regarding illegal release of the third motorcycle. This led to initiation of a departmental proceeding, after issuance of the memo of charge vide memo No. 6573 dated 17.12.2018 containing the name of Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 5/22 the Conducting Officer as well as the Presenting Officer. The memo of charge also contained the list of documents and witnesses. After examination of the witnesses, including the SDPO, Wazirganj and the submission of the defence statement by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report dated 09.11.2019 holding the petitioner guilty for the charges. Based upon the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice vide letter No. 573 dated 04.02.2020. In response to the second show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 25.02.2020 to the disciplinary authority with a categorical denial of the charges and the averments that the Enquiry Officer had not considered his defence viz-a-viz reply of the SDPO in his cross examination. The disciplinary authority did not find any favour to the show cause reply of the petitioner and finally inflicted the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. 7. Aggrieved with the punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 03.06.2020. The Appellate Authority having gone through the impugned order of punishment has found that the disciplinary authority has committed error of record, in as much as, based Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 6/22 upon the facts of another case inflicted the punishment, set aside the order of punishment and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing fresh order vide order contained in Memo No. 833 dated 17.11.2020. On remand being made, the disciplinary authority passed a fresh order inflicting the same punishment vide Memo no. 5840 dated 24.11.2020. This order has further been assailed by preferring another appeal before the Appellate Authority, who vide order dated 28.08.2021 under Memo No. 689 affirmed the punishment order after rejecting the appeal. Now both the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate order are under challenge before this Court. 8. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, whiile by assailing the impugned orders has primarily contended that the gist of the misconduct of the petitioner is said to be that he had left one motorcycle bearing its registration No. BR02T-5703 in connivance with the liquor trader by using unfair means, which motorcycle was seized along with two other motorcycles in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 217/2018. The genesis of the departmental proceeding is, thus, Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 217/2018 which was duly instituted by ASI, Raghubir Sahani. Bare perusal of the FIR and the seizure Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 7/22 list, it would be apparent on its face that only two motorcycles bearing registration Nos. BR02T-1048 and JH02AD-3837 were seized. In the said occurrence, three persons were apprehended and 61 litres of country made liquor was seized. Neither in course of investigation nor when the case was supervised by the supervising authority it has come that apart from these two motorcycles any other motorcycle had been seized by the informant of the said case or the petitioner. 9. Referring to the memo of charge, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that though it contains the list of documentary evidence as well as witnesses but surprisingly the informant of Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 217/2018 has not been arrayed as a witness. The documentary evidence, containing the documents, which are mainly correspondences between the SDPO and the SSP along with the photographs of three motorcycles sent to the SDPO on his WhatsApp by unknown person. Even before initiation of the disciplinary proceeding the defence of the petitioner has been completely ignored. Neither the name of the person has been disclosed who has allegedly sent the photograph on the WhatsApp of the SDPO nor it has been answered as to the motorcycle in question was the subject matter of which crime. During the course of Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 8/22 preliminary enquiry, none of the officer present in the Fatehpur Police Station has supported the allegation that such motorcycle in question was seized by any officer or parked in the premises of the Police Station. Despite the explanation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority proceeded with the disciplinary proceeding. The SDPO of Wazirganj was duly examined by the Department, on whose complaint the proceeding was initiated, but he failed to support the charges. In the cross examination, when he was asked by the petitioner that the Police Station is open for all, so any one can park his vehicle and send its photographs, then the SDPO had admitted and replied that ‘yes’ there is a possibility. The SDPO himself admitted that during the course of enquiry he did not record the statement of any witness and only narrated that he received a photograph on his WhatsApp; the sender of which had told him that three motorcycles were seized in connection with the said case; however the SDPO failed to disclose the name of the sender of the photographs. 10. Referring to the cross examination of the SDPO, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the Enquiry Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in giving a finding that the petitioner is completely guilty for the alleged Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 9/22 charges when the Department has completely failed to prove that the motorcycle in question was subject matter of any crime which has allegedly been released by the petitioner in collusion with the miscreants. The second show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority was nothing but a formality as is evident from the order passed by the disciplinary authority; the disciplinary authority failed to discuss the reply to the second show cause and, as such, the impugned order of punishment is wholly without application of mind and based upon perverse enquiry report. Mr. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate further contended that the entire departmental proceeding suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice, in as much as, no material witness has been examined. 11. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Hardwari Lal vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1999) 8 SCC 582] to the effect that the failure to examine the material witness amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, which would certainly vitiate the entire enquiry. The Appellate Authority has also failed to consider the points raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal and the same is only based upon perverse enquiry report and thus is fit to be set aside. Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 10/22 12. While concluding his submission, the learned Senior Advocate has further relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610], wherein the Hon’ble Court has elaborately elucidate the scope of interference with the disciplinary authority. 13. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently contended that the SSP, Gaya has passed a reasoned order after perusing the memo of charge, exhibits, statement of witnesses, defence explanation of the delinquent, documents annexed therewith and the opinion of the Enquiry Officer. The Court while exercising the power of judicial review cannot re appreciate the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer. The finding on charge was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also affirmed by the Appellate Authority and, as such, the Court cannot act as a second court of appeal. Refuting the contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the Department has failed to examine the material witness, including the informant of Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 217/2018, it is contended that the petitioner has never made any request to produce the said witness in support of his defence. Since the motorcycle in question bearing registration No. BR02T-5703 Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 11/22 was parked in the premises of Fatehpur Police Station of which the petitioner was the SHO, he was under obligation to explain the allegation and the charges levelled in the memo. The learned Advocate for the State, thus referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. This Court has given patient hearing to the learned Advocates for the respective parties and also perused the materials available on record. Before parting with this case, this Court deems it appropriate to underscore the relevant prescriptions of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 2005’). Indubitably the disciplinary proceeding is said to be initiated upon service of a charge memo as mandated under Rule 17(3) of the Rules, 2005 which, inter alia, enables the disciplinary authority to draw a charge memo or cause it to be drawn by a competent authority. Rule 2(f) of “the Disciplinary Rules” defines an appointing authority and inter alia under sub rule (iii) includes the authority who has appointed the Government servant. The appointment order thus having been issued under the signature of the Inspector General of Police, he would be the competent authority of the petitioner in terms of Rule 2(f)(iii) of Rules, 2005. While dealing with the issue in Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 12/22 respect to initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against a Sub Inspector of Police by the Senior Superintendent of Police, a Bench of this Court in the case of Uday Pratap Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2017 (4) PLJR 195] has categorically held that the relevant provision leaves no room for confusion that it is either the appointing authority or any authority authorised by it or the authority authorised by special or general order, who would be competent to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant. Learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court having painstakingly considered and answered the issue in paragraph nos. 31 and 33 of the said judgment: “31. In so far as the case in hand is concerned it is the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna who has initiated the proceeding against the petitioner by service of charge memo placed at Annexure-6 and which also directs the petitioner to file his reply before the Senior Superintendent of Police but then in absence of any authorization given to the Senior Superintendent of Police either under the Bihar Police Manual or by the Inspector General of Police being the appointing authority or the Deputy Inspector General of Police being the Disciplinary Authority to initiate the process, the very initiation is without jurisdiction. Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 13/22 33. There cannot be a contest on the legal proposition that a disciplinary proceeding can only be initiated by an authority competent to do so and even the judgment relied upon by Mr. Anjani Kumar in the case of Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (supra) at paragraph 13 would confirm this position which holds thus: “Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that charge- sheet cannot generally be a subject- matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings.” (Emphasis is mine)” 15. Coming to the case in hand, the entire disciplinary proceeding is based upon the letter of recommendation made by the SDPO, Wazirganj who has received a photograph on his WhatsApp that out of three motorcycles seized by the petitioner in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 217/2018, one Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 14/22 motorcycle bearing registration No. BR02T-5703 has been released in collusion with the miscreants of other person engaged in trade of illicit liquor. Neither in the preliminary investigation nor during the disciplinary proceeding any witness has been examined that the said motorcycle was subject matter of any crime, muchless, Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 217/2018. On perusal of the FIR and the seizure list in connection with the afore noted P.S. Case it only discloses that in the crime in question only two motorcycles bearing registration Nos. JH02AD-3837 and BR02T-1048 were seized. Despite the explanation of the petitioner to the show cause asked by the SSP, Gaya, without getting any approval from the competent authority, he directed for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner after accepting the recommendation of the SDPO, Wazirganj, which was only based upon the photograph sent by an anonymous sender. In course of departmental proceeding, two witnesses, including the SDPO, were examined. One Pankaj Kumar, ASI was the formal witness who proved only documents/memo. So far the SDPO, Wazirganj is concerned, he was examined by the Department who narrated the facts and the allegation; but in his cross examination he admitted the fact that in course of enquiry none of the Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 15/22 person/officer has supported the allegation that the motorcycle in question had ever been seized or was standing in the campus of the Police Station. On a question asked by the petitioner, he also admitted that it is possible that the police station being a public place; it is open for all for all the time; thus any public using any vehicle(s) may come in the premises and park at any place of the campus; and by taking photograph of the vehicle in question anyone may falsely implicate a person by sending it to the higher official. Since the entire charges are revolving around the allegation of the SDPO, Wazirganj; thus the same falls to the ground in his cross examination; this Court deems it proper to record the typed copy of the cross examination of the SDPO, Wazirganj for appreciation of the matter. “Xk;k ftyk foHkkxh; tkap la0&106@18 fo:) vipkjh iq0v0fu0 jkds”k dqekj jatu rRdkyhu Fkkuk/;{k Qrsgiqj esa izfrjh{k.k ds dze vipkjh iq0v0fu0 jkds”k dqekj jatu }kjk vfHk;kstu lk{kh vfHkthr dqekj flag] vuqeaMy iqfyl inkf/kdkjh] othjxat] x;k ls iwNs x;s iz”u ,oa mlls lacaf/kr mÙkj dk fooj.k fuEu izdkj gS& vipkjh&iq0v0fu0 jkds”k dqekj jatu&mifLFkkZr vfHk;kstu lk{kh& vfHkthr dqekj flag] vuq0iq0ink0 othjxat&mifLFkr izLrqrhdj.k ink0& iq0v0fu0 johUnz ukFk iky flfoy ykbZu Fkkuk x;kA iz”u la0& 1- D;k vkids }kjk yxk;s x;s vkjksi ds tkap ds dze esa fdlh lk{kh dk c;ku fy;k x;k gS ;k ugha\ mÙkj& fdlh Hkh lk{kh dk c;ku ugha fy;k x;k gS D;ksafd Fkkuk Qrsgiqj ds dksbZ Hkh ink0 ;k flikgh ;k dehZ bl ?kVuk ds ckjs esa vufHkKrk fn[kkrs gq, c;ku nsus dks rS;kj ugha FksA iz”u la0& 2- vkids }kjk fnukad 03-08-18 dks lefiZr tkap izfrosnu esa ,d Hkh lk{kh dk c;ku vkjksi ds lanHkZ esa fy;k x;k gS ;k ugha\ mÙkj& iz”u la0 1 esa bl lanHkZ esa mÙkj fn;k x;k gS fd ,d Hkh lk{kh dk c;ku ugha fy;k x;k gSA Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 16/22 iz”u la0& 3- D;k fdlh Hkh lk{kh dk tkap ds dze esa c;ku fy;s fcuk tkap izfrosnu dk egRo gS ;k ugha \ crk;saA mÙkj& bl ij fVIi.kh fd;k tkuk esjs vuqlkj mfpr ugha gSA iz”u la0& 4- D;k vkids }kjk vkjksi dk tkap ds dze esa Qrsgiqj Fkkuk dkaM la0&217@18 ds izkFkfedh esa of.kZr rF;ksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;k Fkk \ mÙkj& esjs }kjk tkap ds dze esa Qrsgiqj Fkkuk la0&217@18 ds izkFkfedh esa of.kZr rF;ksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;k FkkA iz”u la0& 5- Qrsgiqj Fkkuk dkaM la0&217@18 dh izkFkfedh fdl ink0 ds fyf[kr izfrosnu ij ntZ dh x;h Fkh \ mÙkj& izkFkfedh ds voyksdu ds vuqlkj mDr dkaM j?kqohj lguh iq0l0v0fu0 Qrsgiqj Fkkuk ds fyf[kr vkosnu ds vk/kkj ij ntZ fd;k x;k FkkA iz”u la0& 6- vkids }kjk fnukad 03-08-18 dks lefiZr tkap izfrosnu esa rhu eksVjlkbZfdy ds uEcjksa dk mYys[k fdl vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gS] tc fd izkFkfedh esa “kjkc ds lkFk nks eksVjlkbZfdy idM+k x;k Fkk ftldk izkFkfedh esa mYys[k gSA mÙkj& fdlh O;fDr ds }kjk esjs ,oa ofj; iqfyl v/kh{kd x;k ds eksckbZy ij whatsapp ds tfj;s rhu eksVj lkbZfdy dk uEcj dze”k% BR-02T/5703, JH-02AD/3837, BR-02T/1048 dk QksVks Hkstk x;k Fkk vkSj dqy 60 yhVj ns”kh “kjkc Hkh idM+k x;k gSA tSls ml O;fDr us crk;k FkkA iz”u la0& 7- Fkkuk ,d vke laLFkk gS tks vke yksxksa ds fy, [kqyk jgrk gSA vke yksx viuh leL;k dk lek/kku gsrq eksVjlkbZfdy ,oa vU; okgu ls vkrs gSa ,oa Fkkuk ifjlj esa xkM+h yxkrs gSaA D;k ml O;fDr }kjk nqZHkkouk ls xzflr gksdj eksVjlkbZfdy dk QksVks okV~lvi ds tfj;s vkidks ,oa ojh; iqfyl v/kh{kd x;k dks Hkst fn;k gks ldrk gSA mÙkj& ,slh laHkkouk gSA iz”u la0& 8- vkids }kjk lefiZr tkap izfrosnu esa eksVj lkbZfdy uEcj BR-02T/5703 Fkkuk esa ik;s tkus dk mYys[k fd;k gSA D;k vkids }kjk tkap ds dze esa mDr eksVjlkbZfdy ds Ikk;s tkus ds lanHkZ esa Fkkuk ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa dfeZ;ksa ls iwNk x;k Fkk \ mÙkj& mDr eksVjlkbZfdy ds ik;s tkus ds lanHkZ esa Fkkuk ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa dfeZ;ksa ls iwNrkN dh x;h Fkh ysfdu fdlh ds }kjk bl lanHkZ esa ugha crk;k x;kA iz”u la0& 9- D;k vki okV~lvi Hkstus tkus okys O;fDr dk uke crk ldrs gS \ mÙkj& ugha crk ldrs gSaA iz”u la0 10- okV~lvi ds tfj;s rhuksa eksVjlkbZfdy dk QksVks tks Hkstk x;k Fkk] D;k lHkh mDr eksVjlkbZfdy Fkkuk esa ,d gh txg ij yxk gSA mÙkj& Fkkuk ifjlj esa nks eksVjlkbZfdy dze”k% BR-02T/1048 ,oa JH-02AD/3837 ,d gh txg ij yxk gS ,oa ,d eksVj Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 17/22 lkbZfdy ftldk uEcj BR-02T/5703 Fkkuk ifjlj esa nwljs txg ij yxk gS tks okV~lvi ij Hksts x;s QksVks ds voyksdu ls izrhr gksrk gSA mijksDr iz”uoyh ds vfrfjDr eq>s vfHk;kstu lk{kh vfHkthr dqekj flag] vuq0iq0ink0 othjxat ls izfrijh{k.k ds dze esa dqN ugha iwNuk gSA bl izfrijh{k.k izfrosnu esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks i<+dj ,oa le>dj izLrqrhdj.k ink0 ds le{k gLrk{kj cuk fn;kA g0 vLi’V g0 vLi’V g0 vLi’V g0 vLi’V 19@07@19 19@07@19 19@07@19 19@07@19 tkap ink0 izLrqrhdj.k lk{kh dk g0 vipkjh dk dk g0 ink0 dk g0 g0 ” 16. Notwithstanding the afore noted facts, it is rather unfortunate that the Enquiry Officer has shifted the onus to prove the charges on the petitioner in complete disregard to the legal jurispudence by holding that the petitioner failed to explain the position that the motorcycle in question had never been parked in the premises of the Police Station nor the petitioner has requested for production of ASI, Raghubir Sahani, who was the informant of the Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 217/2018 or any officials. The Enquiry Officer wrongly concluded that non asking for production of witnesses is a move of the petitioner to conceal his misdeed and after making further observation that the activities of the petitioner was suspicious, thus held the petitioner guilty of the charges. This Court deprecates such observation of the Enquiry Officer and the finding based upon which he concluded that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. It is trite law that it is incumbent upon the Department to prove the charges. The Enquiry Officer performs Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 18/22 a quasi judicial function; the charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. 17. In the case of Moni Shankar vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2008) 3 SCC 484], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has sumarrised that the departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal/Court is within its domain to interfere. The Hon’ble Court has finally concluded the issue by holding that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality. It is trite law that the suspicion whatsoever strong cannot take place of proof even in a domestic enquiry. Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 19/22 18. Now coming to the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority, this Court finds the same is based upon the enquiry report; there is neither any discussion nor shows the application of mind as to why the reply to the show cause affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is not acceptable. Non- application of mind also reflects from the action of the disciplinary authority when in the earlier occasion while inflicting punishment he has taken note of the entire facts of different case and when the said order was set aside and the matter has been relegated by the Appellate Authority, either the disciplinary authority ought to give a chance to the delinquent to represent or to consider his earlier reply by answering the same in a reasonable way but it is rather unfortunate that the same has not been done; the order of the disciplinary authority sans any application of mind, apart from the same is passed by an authority having no jurisdiction as has been held in the afore noted paragraph. The similar mistake has been committed by the Appellate Authority when he failed to consider the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 19. Suffice it to observe that the provision of appeal is not a mere formality, the Appellate Authority has to apply its independent mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 20/22 authority or setting aside the same. 20. With all humility and regard to the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Gunasekaran (supra), there cannot be any confrontation to the law that in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot venture into re-appreciation of evidence or interfere with the conclusion in enquiry proceeding if the same are conducted in accordance with law. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court painstakingly summarised the scope of interference in a disciplinary/departmental proceeding in a given circumstances. It would be worth benefiting to quote paragraph- 12 of the said decision: “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 21/22 (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.” 21. In the light of the mandate of the Apex Court and as has been held in the foregoing paragraph, this Court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding the disciplinary proceeding held by an authority having no jurisdiction, also have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations and failed to admit the admissible and material evidence which influenced the finding, apart from the impugned order based on no evidence; Hence the impugned orders dated 24.11.2020 under Memo No. 5840 as well as the order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.18908 of 2021 dt.18-01-2025 22/22 28.08.2021 under Memo No. 689 are hereby quashed and cancelled. In consequences thereof, the respondents authorities are directed to ensure all the consequential benefits, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from today. 22. The writ petition stands allowed. 23. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. Anjani/- (Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 07.01.2025 Uploading Date 18.01.2025 Transmission Date