In Suresh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 14-page long judgement dated January 29, 2026, wherein, he set aside the unsustainable order of punishment dated January 31, 2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda, the order dated July 29, 2015 rejecting Service Appeal no. 246 of 2014 by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, and the order dated October 14, 2016 by the Joint Director, Agriculture Ganana, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar in a ₹ 5,000 bribery case.
The judgement reads:"27. The writ application is allowed along with consequential benefits. 28. The petitioner will be reinstated in service with effect from the date of dismissal i.e. 31.1.2014 and the entire arrears of salary, after deducting the suspension allowance paid to the petitioner, shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order." The writ application was allowed. The six other Respondents were: Chief Secretary, Bihar, Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Joint Director, Agriculture Ganana, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, District Magistrate Cum Collector, Nalanda at Bihar Sarif and Circle Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda.
The case of the petitioner was that while he was at the relevant time posted as revenue clerk in Circle Hilsa in the district of Nalanda, the petitioner was caught taking bribe in a trap case for which Vigilance P.S. Case no. 7 of 2012 was registered and he was taken into custody. The petitioner was subsequently enlarged on bail. An inquiry was started against the petitioner for which memo of charge was served on him with the charge that on January 25, 2012 the petitioner, a Rajaswa Karamchari, was caught taking bribe of Rs.5,000/- and he was taken into custody by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. He was sent in judicial custody to the Adarsh Jail, Beur, Patna. The petitioner had filed his reply to the charges and the inquiry proceeded. The Enquiry Report dated August 29, 2012 was submitted by the Conducting Officer, a copy of which was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same.. The respondent authorities i.e. the District Magistrate, Nalanda came out with an order of punishment dated January 31, 2014 dismissing the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division on July 29, 2015 and the revision filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar by his order dated October 14, 2016. 7.
The senior counsel, S.N.P. Singh appearing for the petitioner submitted that on perusal of the memo of charges, it emerged that it was alleged that the petitioner being caught taking bribe of ₹ 5,000/- on January 25, 2012, however when the inquiry proceeded, from the contents of the inquiry report it emerged that the inquiry proceedings dealt with three charges against the petitioner.
It was also submitted that on perusal of the inquiry report, the so called informant of the criminal case who was said to have been examined, however neither any intimation was given to the petitioner of his examination nor was the petitioner given any opportunity to cross-examine him. Admittedly no document was either produced, marked exhibit or proved by any of the witness in course of inquiry. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.; (2009) 2 SCC 570. It was submitted that it was a case of no evidence. He submitted that even the memo of charge neither mentions about the witnesses who are proposed to be examined to prove the charges against the petitioner nor does it mention about any of the documents that is sought to be relied upon in proving the charges. It was submitted that it was categorically stated that neither the date of examination of the witnesses was fixed nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It was also submitted that the entire order sheet of the departmental proceeding was brought on record.
Referring to the order dated August 16, 2012 of the Conducting Officer which mentioned about the examination of the informant who was said to have come with evidence as also other witnesses namely Yogendra Kumar and Raja Babu, it was stated that there was no mention of any cross-examination nor any of the witnesses having proved any document and the proceedings was concluded on the same day.
A Division Bench of the High Court in Devendra Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2023) drew on Supreme Court's decision in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & oOrs. (2009) 2 SCC 570 to underline that "the documents produced in a departmental inquiry has to be proved by examining witnesses. Even an F.I.R. was held to be not evidence by itself without actual proof of facts stated therein. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had also held that even an admission or confession to the police itself is not sufficient to find the delinquent employee guilty in a departmental proceeding if no evidence is brought on record to prove the offence or misconduct alleged. Departmental inquiry was held to be a quasi-judicial proceeding and the Inquiry Officer functions in the status of a quasi-judicial authority. Not only should evidence be led in a departmental inquiry, the conclusions arrived at should be based on evidence which brings forth a probability that the delinquent has committed the misconduct alleged and charged against him. No Inquiry Report based on conjectures and surmises can be sustained and even in a departmental inquiry, the standard of However high the degree of suspicion is, it cannot be a substitute for legal proof.”
Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi observed:“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs 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. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.”
In such a backdrop, the case against the
petitioner being one of no evidence, the orders impugned were not
sustainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment