Chief Justice Pancholi led bench upholds judgment by Justice Purnendu Singh

In Jitendra Kumar vs.The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors.(2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 9-page long judgment dated August 12, 2025. This is the 19th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice.  Justice Pancholi upheld the 7-page long judgment dated November 28, 2024 by the Single Judge bench.

Drawing on paragraph of the decision by the Supreme Court in Union of India &Ors. vs. Janardhan Debanath & Anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 245), Justice Pancholi observed:"it can be said that whether there was any misbehavour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated." He added: "12. We are of the view that in the present case though there is reference with regard to letter dated 07.10.2023 in the impugned order of transfer passed by the respondent authority, from the impugned order of transfer it is clear that the appellant/original petitioner has been transferred in public interest due to administrative exigencies."

Justice Pancholi concluded:"we are of the view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the petition and, therefore, non interference is required in the present appeal."

The petitioner had filed the Letters Patent Appeal under provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court Rules against the judgment dated November 28, 2024 rendered by  Single Judge in CWJC No. 17726 of 2023, ny which the Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/original petitioner. 

In his judgment, Justice Singh concluded:"The petitioner after having found to have shown disregard and also for the reason that he retained important records with him for a long period, which fact is dealt in the transfer order contained in Annexure-28, it appears that the petitioner has been transferred in public interest due to administrative exigencies. I also find that, time and again, complaints were made against the petitioner on the ground of alleged misconduct and in the said view of the fact also, I don’t find any infirmity in transfer order with regard to the petitioner.8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed."

He added:"so far as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned that he has not been paid salary for the period of thirteen months, the authority must verify whether the petitioner has joined the place of transfer and he was working regularly. In case, it is found that the petitioner has worked for the said period, it goes without saying that he must be paid salary without fail." This judgment has been upheld by the Division Bench.