In Vijay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Police Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar delivered a 16-page long judgment dated February 26, 2026, wherein, it concluded: ".....we find that there is perversity in the impugned order and hence, we feel it proper to set aside the same and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication of the case on merits. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back for reconsideration of the matter and be placed before the Hon’ble Judge dealing with such matters as per roaster. 13. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the accusation leveled against the appellant, the punishment imposed and whether the same would be legally sustainable on the basis of the materials available on record, as was produced before the disciplinary authority. It is open to the learned Single Judge to consider the same on its own merits. 14. In the result, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated, hereinabove." It was Justice Purnendu Singh who had passed the judgement dated December 20, 2024 as the Single judge.
The eight other respondents were: Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Director General of Police, Bihar, Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Bihar, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar, Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga, Inspector General of Police, Modernization, Bihar, Patna-cum-Enquiry Authority and Superintendent of Police, Samastipur.
In the writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) That this is an application for issuance of a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Resolution as contained in Memo No. 10819 dated 26.10.2022 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and where under the punishment of censure (Nindan) (w.e.f. allegation year) and withholding the two increment with non cumulative effect has been inflicted upon the petitioner and further for quashing the resolution as contained in Memo No3253 dated 7.3.2023 issued under the signature of same very officer i.e., Deputy Secretary, Home Police Department, Bihar, Patna whereby and where under departmental appeal/ review petition of the petitioner has been rejected on erroneous grounds as well as on wrong facts which has been communicated to the Commandant, Bihar Special Armed Police (BSAP) Headquarter, Patna vide letter no.794 dated 16.3.2023 and subsequently same has been communicated to the petitioner by the Commandant, BSAP-9, Jamalpur vide memo no.37 dated 22.03.2023 and further directing the respondent authorities to issue integrity certificate of the petitioner and further for issuance of any other appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders it may deem fit and proper by the High Court.
(ii) That this Interlocutory application is being filed for addition in the prayer portion that to grant promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 01/12/2020 and further for pass any appropriate order or orders it may deem fit and proper.
(iii) That this Interlocutory application is being filed for addition in the prayer portion to quash the inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer to the extent of finding/opinion with respect to Charge No. 1 and 2 as same is perverse.
(iv) That this Interlocutory application is being filed for addition in the prayer portion for also quashing memorandum of charge as contained in memo no. 6551 dated 9.8.2019 along with resolution as contained in memo no. 1072 dated 5.2.2021 issued under the signature of Additional Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar without approval of competent authority i.e. Governor, Bihar.
The counsel of the appellant had submitted that even though the re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible but the Single Judge should have appreciated the points raised that the findings of the disciplinary authority on charges nos. 1 and 2 are wholly arbitrary and based on no evidence. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India -Vrs.- Biswanath Bhattacharjee, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 329, wherein, the Court held in paragraph no.21 that if the finding of the disciplinary authority is beyond record i.e. no evidence or based on irrelevant or extraneous factors or by ignoring material evidence, some amount of scrutiny is necessary. A finding of no evidence or perversity cannot be rendered sans such basic scrutiny of the materials and the findings of the disciplinary authority.
The counsel for the appellant also argued that even though out of seven charges framed against the appellant, two charges were stated to have been proved, but the materials available on record justifies that the disciplinary authority had erred in holding that the two charges had been proved and therefore, there was perversity in the finding of the disciplinary authority imposing the minor punishment. It was argued that the appellant has been seriously prejudiced, inasmuch as even though he had challenged the imposition of such penalty on merits, but the same was not considered.
Chief Justice Sahoo observed: "10.....we are of the humble view that since specific challenges were made to quash the imposition of punishment vide resolution dated 26.10.2022 as well as the orders passed under departmental appeal/review, the learned Single Judge should have considered the grounds taken in the writ petition as to whether it is a fit case for quashing the resolution of imposing punishment of censure and withholding of two interments with non-cumulative effect or not and should not have disposed of the writ petition holding that since the appellant had already suffered two increments, therefore, he was entitled for being promoted after the expiry of the penalty. When it is the case of the appellant that there being no evidence whatsoever available on record to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the two charges, it should have been examined. If the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. Of course, adequacy and reliability of the evidence should not be gone into and the High Court should not interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. Needless to say that infliction of punishment of withholding two increments with non-cumulative effect along with censure casts stigma on the Government servant, visit the Officer with civil consequences, affecting his future career, and therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge should have considered the matter on its merits, has got substantial force."
In his judgement, Justice Singh had taken notice, particularly, sub clause (i) and (iv) of the Explanation-2 of Rule 14 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, which are reproduced hereinafter:
14. Minor and Major Penalties.
Explanation (2). (i)Censure. The Censure shall be entered in the character roll of the year the allegation or omission & commission. The adverse effect of censure on the confirmation and promotion of concerned Government Servant shall be for next three consecutive years after the year of allegation or omission & commission for which he or she is censured. For example, if a Government Servant is censured for the allegation or omission & commission of the year 2002-2003, it shall be entered in the character roll of 2002-2003 and its adverse effect shall be from the year 2003-2004 to 2005-2006. Such Government Servant who has been awarded with three censures, shall be deemed to be fit for promotion only if after expiry of the period of adverse effect of last (third) censure, during the next five years his work and conduct of at least three years is extraordinary and has not been awarded any adverse remarks for the period of next five years. For example, if the adverse effect of third censure of a Government servant expires in 2002 and his promotion is due in 2008 or before that, in that case his promotion shall be deemed to be due in 2008, i.e. five years after the expiry of adverse effects of last censure, with the condition that during the five years of 2003 to 2007 his work and conduct of at least three years is extraordinary and during the said five years he has not been awarded any adverse remarks.
iv)Withholding of increments of pay without cumulative effect. Such penalty shall be effective from the date of issue of order, i.e. the increments due after the issue of the order shall be withheld. It will be essential to mention clearly the number of annual increments withheld in the order by the disciplinary authority. After the communication of order of penalty the increment shall remain withheld from the due date of next increment. For example, if two increments of a Government Servant are withheld without cumulative effect, it will mean that after the date of communication of order of penalty. from the due date of next increment till one year the first increment and from the second due date till one year the second increment shall remain withheld. As the penalty is without cumulative effect, the salary from the due date of third increment after the withholding of increments shall be paid with increment after adding the stages of both the withheld increments, but the financial benefit of withheld period shall not be admissible. No promotion shall be considered during the period of operation of this penalty, i.e. for the number of years the increments are withheld. Only after the expiry of the period of penalty, it will be possible to consider on the promotion from the due date."
Justice Singh had concluded: "In view of the fact that petitioner has suffered already two increments, he becomes entitled for being promoted after expiry of the penalty and the adverse effect will amount to lose its force making the petitioner entitled for being considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) soon so that the petitioner may not further demoralize, as junior to him have been promoted." The judgement has been set aside by the Division Bench.
No comments:
Post a Comment