IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7970 of 2026 ====================================================== Uday Kumar Son of Kishun Prasad, resident of village- Chakrasalpur More, P.O. Rana Bigha, P.S. Deep Nagar, District- Nalanda at Biharsharif, presently posted as Block Development Officer, Punpun, District Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Patna, District- Patna. 4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Patna, District- Patna. 5. Dhananjay Madhu, Son of Bhagwan Singh, Resident of village- Shekhpura, P.O. - Nandlal Bag, P.S. Gaurichak, District- Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, GA-10 Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC-2 to GA-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN CAV JUDGMENT Date : 08-07-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:- Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026 2/11 “1) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the order dated 22.10.2025 passed by the Respondent no. 2 and contained in his memo no.13030 dated 22.10.2025, whereby and where under the Respondent no.2 has been pleased to direct for framing of charge against the petitioner for initiation of a departmental proceeding in view of the report of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Patna contained in letter no.3188 dated 06.09.2021. (II) For a declaration that if under the instruction issued by the Government, it was the Engineer of Block Project Managing Unit, who was alone competent for grant of technical sanction for the schemes under Mukhyamantri Gali Nali and Drinking Water Scheme, no irregularity was committed by the petitioner for framing of charge against him if the technical sanction granted by the Junior Engineer concerned. (ΠΙ) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs ,order / orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026 3/11 the formation of the State Government following the 2015 General Elections, two welfare schemes, namely Mukhyamantri Gramin Gali Nali Pakkikaran Yojana and Mukhyamantri Gramin Pey Jal Nishchay Yojana, were introduced. For their implementation, the Panchayati Raj Department issued detailed guidelines vide Memo Nos. 5751 and 5752 dated 30.06.2017 (Annexures-P1 and P2). It is submitted that under Paragraph 4.3 of the said guidelines, a Block Project Management Unit (BPMU), chaired by the Block Development Officer, was constituted for implementation of the schemes. The Block Panchayati Raj Officer was assigned the role of facilitator, while the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer of MGNREGA were to provide technical support. It is further submitted that the Block Project Management Unit was entrusted with granting technical sanction to the detailed project reports prepared for ward-level schemes. 4. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the aforesaid guidelines, a scheme for Ward No. 1 of Gram Panchayat Raj, Barawan, under the Mukhyamantri Gramin Gali Nali Pakkikaran Yojana, was prepared by the Ward Implementation and Management Committee after obtaining administrative approval from the Mukhiya. The proposal was Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026 4/11 thereafter forwarded to the Block Project Management Unit for technical sanction. Upon grant of technical sanction, the petitioner, in his capacity as Chairman of the Block Project Management Unit, merely informed the Mukhiya/Panchayat Secretary that technical sanction had been accorded and directed them to proceed with execution of the work after obtaining the requisite No Objection Certificate from the Circle Officer and administrative approval of the Gram Panchayat. 5. It is further submitted that pursuant to Letter No. 20 dated 05.01.2021 issued by the District Magistrate, Patna, an enquiry was conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer regarding alleged irregularities committed by the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Barawan. The enquiry report was submitted vide Letter No. 3188 dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure- P3). The report observed that, in view of the Panchayati Raj Department's Letter No. 6578 dated 03.12.2018, forwarding the estimates to the Block Project Management Unit for technical sanction was not in conformity with the departmental guidelines, though technical sanction had been granted by the petitioner in his capacity as Block Development Officer. 6. Learned counsel refers to Letter No. 6578 dated 03.12.2018 (Annexure-P4) and submits that Paragraphs 6.2 and Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026 5/11 7.2 of Memo Nos. 5751 and 5752 dated 30.06.2017 specifically contemplated that after administrative approval by the Gram Panchayat, the Ward Implementation and Management Committee would prepare the estimate with the assistance of the Technical Assistant and obtain technical sanction from the Block Project Management Unit. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner's communication dated 30.10.2018, stating that technical sanction had been granted by the Block Project Management Unit, was fully consistent with the prevailing guidelines and did not constitute any misconduct. 7. Learned counsel further submits that despite the enquiry report not disclosing any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, show-cause notices dated 11.10.2021 and 24.11.2021 were issued. Although the petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying the allegations, Respondent No. 4, without proper consideration of his defence, imposed the minor punishment of "censure" vide Memo No. 341 dated 27.01.2023 (Annexure-P5). It is further submitted that thereafter Respondent No. 5 preferred a complaint before Respondent No. 2 challenging the aforesaid action. The matter ultimately culminated in CWJC No. 7866 of 2025, wherein this Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, to Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026 6/11 dispose of the petitioner's representation after granting an opportunity of hearing by passing a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated period. 8. Learned counsel further submits that although the impugned order dated 22.10.2025 (Memo No. 13030, Annexure-P8) was purportedly passed in compliance with the aforesaid direction, the petitioner was neither issued any notice nor afforded an opportunity of hearing. By the said order, Respondent No. 2 directed Respondent No. 3 to frame charges and initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel submits that the entire action is founded upon Charge No. 2, which proceeds on the erroneous assumption that placing the estimate before the Block Project Management Unit was contrary to the departmental guidelines. According to the petitioner, the estimates had been prepared by the Ward Implementation and Management Committee with the assistance of the competent technical personnel and after obtaining administrative approval from the Gram Panchayat. Technical sanction was granted by the Block Project Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026 7/11 Management Unit in accordance with Paragraphs 6.2 and 7.2 of Memo Nos. 5751 and 5752 dated 30.06.2017. The petitioner neither granted the technical sanction in his individual capacity nor committed any misconduct. Consequently, initiation of departmental proceedings against him is wholly unsustainable in law. 10. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the order dated 22.10.2025 passed by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (Respondent No. 2), as contained in Memo No. 13030, has been passed strictly in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference by this Court at this stage. It is submitted that the impugned order merely directs the constitution of an enquiry and recommends initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel further submits that initiation of a departmental proceeding against a government servant is governed by the CCA Rules, 2005, and at the stage of initiation of such proceeding, no prior opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded to the delinquent employee. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026 8/11 transpires to this Court that the petitioner is aggrieved by the operative portion of the impugned order, which reads as follows: “foHkkxh; i=kad&269] fnukad&17- 01-2017 }kjk fuxZr fn”kk funs”k ds vuqlkj eq[;ea=h xzkeh.k xyh ukyh iDdhdj.k fu”p; ;kstuk ds rgr izfr okMZ O;; dh vf/kdre lhek 12-13 yk[k :i;s fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA foÙkh; o’kZ 2016&17 ls 2020&21 ds chp inLFkkfir RkRdkyhu iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh] iquiqu }kjk mDr lhek ls vf/kd jkf”k ds fy, rduhdh Lohd`fr iznku djus ds fy, iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh l{ke izkf/kdkj ugha gSaA muds }kjk vius vf/kdkj {ks= ds brj fdu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,oa fdl izkf/kdkj ds lgefr ls rduhdh Lohd`fr iznku dh x;h] ;h tkaWap dk fo’k; gSA 7- vr,o rRdkyhu ftyk iapk;y jkt inkf/kdkjh ds i=akd&3388] fnukad&06-09- 2021 es nks’kh Ikk;s x;s lacaf/kr iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh ds fo:/k tokcnsgh r; djrs gq, vkjksi i= xfBr dh tk, ,oa lacaf/kr foHkkx dks vuq”kklfud dkjZokbZ gsrq vuq”kalk dh tk, rFkk vuqikyu izfrosnu iapk;rh jkt foHkkx dks miyC/k djk;h tk,A okn dh dkjZokbZ bl funs”k ds lkFk lekIr dh tkrh gSA vkns”k dh izfr lHkh lacaf/kr dks Hksth tk;sA” 13. Upon a plain reading of paragraphs 6 and 7, as quoted hereinabove, it transpires that the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, has concluded Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026 9/11 that the issues involved in the present matter require a detailed enquiry and that responsibility is required to be fixed. Accordingly, directions have been issued for framing of charges and for taking appropriate steps towards initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Rule 17(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, reads as follows: “(2) Wherever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring about the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a government servant, he may himself inquire into it, or appoint under these Rules an authority to inquire about the truth thereof. [Provided that where the Department Enquiry Commissioner is appointed as inquiring authority in such cases the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner either himself conduct the inquiry or may transfer the case of enquiry to the Additional Departmental Enquiry Commissioner. In the matter of such transferred cases of enquiry the Additional Departmental Enquiry Commissioner may forward the records of enquiry along with Enquiry report directly to the Disciplinary Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026 10/11 Authority.] Explanation. - Where the disciplinary authority himself holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (7) to sub-rule (20) and in sub-rule (22) of this Rule to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority.” 14. A bare reading of Rule 17(2) of the CCA Rules, 2005 makes it evident that, at the stage of initiation of a departmental proceeding, the satisfaction of the competent disciplinary authority is sufficient. In the present case, the superior authority has merely recommended to the competent department that appropriate action be taken against the petitioner by initiating a departmental proceeding. Such recommendation, by itself, does not amount to initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. 15. In accordance with law, the petitioner shall be entitled to an opportunity of hearing only after the competent disciplinary/appointing authority, upon being satisfied, decides to initiate a departmental proceeding in terms of the CCA Rules, 2005. Until such decision is taken by the competent authority, no legal right of the petitioner can be said to have been infringed. Patna High Court CWJC No.7970 of 2026 dt. 08-07-2026 11/11 16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 17. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Ashwini/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 22.06.2026 Uploading Date 09/07/2026 Transmission Date NA