Rajiv Kumar, Assistant Commissioner dismissed, found guilty of revenue embezzlement, financial irregularities and for hiding earlier posting as Junior Accounts Assistant

Finance Department has issued a resolution dated June 19, 2026 under the signature of Anil Kumar, Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar under the order of Governor Bihar which has been published in the Bihar Gazette on June 23, 2026 regarding the punishment order of Rajiv Kumar, Assistant Commissioner. It reads: "Shri Rajiv Kumar (Bihar Financial Administration Service), Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund Directorate, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna was earlier employed as Junior Accounts Assistant, Electricity Supply, Lower Division, Gogri, Khagaria in North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited. Maheshkhunt police station case number – 298/2022 dated – 09.12.2022 is registered regarding the revenue embezzlement and financial irregularities committed by him during the said employment. The facts of the said financial irregularity, revenue embezzlement and police station incident were registered by North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna, through letter no. 337, dated 18.072023, reported to the Finance Department. Prima facie, the allegations reported against Shri Kumar were found to be true." 

The resolution states that on the basis of available evidence, chargesheet was framed against the accused officer in the light of the relevant provisions of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - 2005 (as amended from time to time), in which four serious charges were made as follows:-

Charge No. 1:- It has been informed vide memorandum no. 337, dated 18.07.2023 of North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna that you are already employed on the post of Junior Accounts Assistant, Electricity Supply Lower Division, Gogri, Khagaria and have been accused of revenue embezzlement and financial irregularities in the period from June, 2017 to December, 2020. An FIR has been registered against you (Maheshkhunt police station case number – 298/2022 dated – 09.12.2022).

Charge  No. 2:-Your resignation letter was rejected by your former employer due to not obtaining permission to apply for recruitment in other service, not obtaining no objection certificate before contributing to other service, contributing to other service without getting the resignation letter accepted, not making proper transfer of charge and not clarifying the status of dues to the company/not being due. 

Charge No. 3: No information/fact has been mentioned in paragraph 11 (a) of the verification form dedicated by you in the order of document/certificate verification dated 22.012019 in the Finance Department for appointment to the post of Accounts Officer (details related to whether you are serving or have been in the Central or State Government or semi-government body or autonomous body or public undertaking or any firm or institution). Whereas as per the referred letter of North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna, you were posted in the said body. It is clear that at the time of appointment under the Finance Department, the fact regarding your posting on the post of Junior Accounts Assistant under North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna was hidden in the verification form submitted by you.

Charge No. 4: At the time of appointment to the post of Accounts Officer in Bihar Financial Administration Service, you were also holding the post of Junior Accounts Assistant under North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited, Patna. At present you are holding two posts at the same time, which is against the relevant rules of Bihar Service Code. 

By providing a copy of the above constituted charge sheet vide departmental letter no. 10255 dated 17.11.2023, a written clarification was demanded from the accused officer within 7 (seven) days, in response to which the written allegation was submitted on 27.11.2023. The said statement was found unsatisfactory and rejected by the department. 

Under Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - 2005 Rule 17 (2) to investigate the allegations against the accused officer in the prescribed manner, by Departmental Office Order No. 2867, dated 15.03.2024, Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna was nominated as the Operating Officer and Assistant Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Patna was nominated as the Presentation Officer. 

In the investigation report submitted by the Operating Officer, allegations no. 1 and 3 made against the accused officer were reported as proved, charge no. 2 was partially proved and charge no. 4 was reported as unproven. 

Based on the findings of the investigation report, in the light of Rule 18 (3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - 2005, while providing a copy of the investigation report, through departmental letter no. 8913 dated 16.08.2024, Shri Kumar was directed to submit his representation / request within 15 days, in the light of which Shri Kumar did so on 05.09.2024. Submitted his written representation.

A detailed review of the investigation report and the representation of the accused officer was done by the disciplinary authority. On the basis of evidence and legal provisions, charge numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 (all four charges) were found proved by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, through departmental letter no. 10688, dated 09.10.2025, a written representation was again demanded from Shri Kumar from the accused officer in the light of Rule 18 (3) of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - 2005, which he submitted on 31.10.2025. After reviewing the written representation received from the accused officer, the disciplinary authority found it not logical and rejected it. 

The resignation letter submitted by the accused officer was rejected by his previous employer, hence he will be legally considered to be working in his previous post. It was found illegal for him to be employed in two different institutions at the same time and hold posts at both the places.

Prescribed advice was sought from Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna through departmental letter no. 12592 dated 11.12.2025 and reminder letter no. 566 dated 09.03.2026. The Commission expressed its consent to the proposed punishment (dismissal) through letter no. 4909, dated 09.03.2026 and letter no. 202, dated 17.04.2026.

Therefore, as per the decision of the disciplinary authority in the light of the consent received from Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna, the punishment of "dismissal, which will not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government" under Rule - 14 (X) of Bihar Government Servants (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, is communicated to Shri Rajeev Kumar (Bihar Financial Administration Service), Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund Directorate, Bihar, Patna. The punishment of dismissal from service will be effective from the date of issue of the resolution.

 

Justice Dr. Anshuman sets aside disciplinary order by Superintendent of Police, Nalanda and the appellate order

In Bishwajeet Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary cum Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Dr. Anshuman of Patna High Court allowed the writ petition. He delivered a 5-page long judgement dated January 30, 2026, wherein, he sets aside the disciplinary order dated May 31, 2020 by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda and the appellate order dated July 7, 2020. The matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority, who is required to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, considering points mentioned in reply to 2nd show-cause notice, within a period of 90 days from the date of production of a copy of this order. The four other Respondents were: Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Patna, Inspector General of Police, Patna Zone, Patna, Superintendent of Police, Nalanda and Sri Prakash Kumar Sharan, Inspector of Police, the then Bihar Police Station (Campt), Nalanda Bihar Police Station.

The petitioner had prayed for directing the concerned respondents to forbear from giving any effect to the order dated dated May 31, 2020 issued in a Departmental Proceeding of 2020 which was  affirmed by the
order dated June 30, 2020 by the Inspector General of Police, Patna, against the order of awarding punishment in the Appeal filed by the Petitioner, communicated by the S.P. Nalanda. The petitioner had filed memorial application before the Director General of Police which was also rejected and affirmed by the order passed by the above both authority on August 10, 2021. It was submitted that the orders were illegal, void and arbitrary manner. The orders were also contrary to Rule 824 read with Appendix 49 of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order was essentially one wherein the second show-cause reply was not considered at all, except for a cryptic one-line observation stating that the reply was “not found satisfactory.” He submitted that in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, the submissions of both sides are required to be duly considered, and a mere one-line statement that the reply was unsatisfactory amounts to a gross violation of the settled principles of law. He also submitted that in the order-sheet, particularly in the first and fifteenth lines, interpolations were apparently made by using whitener and inserting other words, without any initials or authentication. He submitted that the enquiry report itself was not prepared in accordance with law. It was also submitted that the petitioner had filed a detailed second show-cause reply in defence, which was not considered at all. Therefore, he submitted that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was in complete violation of the settled principles of service jurisprudence. He pointed out that the Appellate Authority had failed to consider these aspects of the matter and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal vide order dated July 7, 2020.
 

Justice Anil Kumar Sinha quashes punishment order by District Programme Officer (Establishment), Arwal, appellate order by Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya

In Satyendra Kumar Pathak vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Justice Anil Kumar Sinha delivered a 11-page long judgement dated November 7, 2025, wherein, he concluded:"The order of punishment dated 01.10.2016 passed by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Arwal, as well as the appellate order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh  Division, Gaya, is hereby quashed. 23. The petitioner is entitled to be paid his full salary for the suspension period and the consequential benefits. The entire payments shall be made to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order." 

Justice Sinha observed: "This Court finds that the appellate order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya, is cryptic and non-speaking. The appellate authority has merely reiterated the conclusion of the disciplinary authority without assigning any independent reason, and without examining the correctness of the procedure adopted in the inquiry. The appellate order is, thus, nothing but a mere mechanical affirmation and suffers from clear non-application of mind. 21. Considering the facts as discussed above, this Court is  satisfied that the punishment order, dated 01.10.2016 as well as the appellate order, dated 16.01.2018, stand vitiated which violates the principles of natural justice causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed." 

The other seven respondents were:Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Director, Primary Education Bihar, Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Bihar, District Education Officer, Arwal, District Programme Officer, Establishment, Arwal, Block Education Officer, Block-Karpi, Arwal and Head Master-Cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Middle School, Karpi, Arwal.

The writ petition was filed for quashing the order of punishment, dated October 1, 2016 passed by the District Programme Officer, Arwal. It also prayed for a direction to the respondent/authorities for payment of salary and subsistence allowance for the entire period of suspension along with all consequential and monetary benefits. The petitioner sought amendment in the prayer portion of the writ petition, stating that during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent no. 4, namely the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya, Bihar, who is the appellate authority, had passed an order dated January 16, 2018, whereby the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority was upheld. The petitioner had also prayed for quashing of the appellate order.

The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Matric Trained Scale on November 1, 1977, at Primary School, Kendua, Imamganj, District Gaya. In the year 1987, he was granted the first time-bound promotion and subsequently received ‘Pravar Koti’ promotion in the year 1989. Thereafter, he was posted as the In-charge Headmaster of the Middle School, Kochahasa, Karpi Block, District -Arwal, and was due to retire on June 30, 2017. While the petitioner was serving as In-charge Headmaster, the District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad, issued a letter dated February 17, 2010, placing the petitioner under suspension on the basis of a report submitted by the Area Education Officer cum Incharge, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Arwal on the allegation that he was absent without notice and irregularities were committed in the mid-day meal scheme. Pursuant to the order of suspension, petitioner submitted his joining at headquarters on February 19, 2010. The District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad, by order dated May 6, 2010, framed memo of charge in Prapatra “Ka” and appointed Block Education Officer, Arwal, as Enquiry Officer and Block Education Officer, Karpi, as Presenting Officer to conduct the departmental inquiry.

By order dated March 10, 2011, District Superintendent of Education, Arwal, revoked the suspension of the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to be posted at Middle School, Kochahasa, Karpi, Arwal. In the said order, it was clarified that the Departmental Proceeding would continue. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his joining at Middle School, Kochahasa on March 15, 2011. Thereafter, a memo of charge was again served upon the petitioner vide order dated June 4, 2011 in Prapatra “Ka” by District Superintendent of Education, Arwal, and Block Education Officer, Kurtha, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Block Education Officer, Karpi was appointed as Presenting officer. At this stage, the Enquiry officer, submitted the inquiry report on April 4, 2016. 

In view of the inquiry report dated April 4, 2016, the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Arwal, passed the order of punishment dated October 1, 2016 imposing punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect alongwith warning regarding not to remain absent in the school in future without prior intimation and departmental permission. In the punishment order, it was also directed that apart from subsistence allowance during suspension period, nothing will be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya, against the impugned order of punishment, dated October 1, 2016. The appellate authority disposed the appeal vide order, dated January 16, 2018, whereby the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority has been upheld. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Enquiry Officer without issuing a show-cause notice or affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, proceeded to submit an inquiry report on April 4, 2016 before the District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad. The enquiry report was submitted behind his back and in complete disregard of the mandatory procedural safeguards, a copy of which was not furnished to the petitioner.

It was the specific case of the petitioner that, before passing the order of punishment, a second show-cause notice was not served upon him, nor was any opportunity of personal hearing afforded. The entire proceeding, according to him, was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. Non-supply of inquiry report and second show cause has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. During the entire period of suspension, the petitioner was neither paid his salary nor even the subsistence allowance to which he was entitled under the law.

Assailing the appellate order, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate order also vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind and has been passed in a cryptic manner. The said order is nothing but a mere reiteration of the original punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority, without any independent reasoning, analysis of the grounds urged in appeal, or consideration of the procedural lapses pointed out by the petitioner.

To sum up, his argument was that the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated on multiple counts. Firstly, the petitioner was subjected to double jeopardy as charges were framed twice for the same misconduct. Secondly, the inquiry was conducted ex-parte without issuance of any show-cause notice or providing him any opportunity to defend himself. Thirdly, the order of punishment was passed after an unexplained delay of six years, thereby, causing grave prejudice to him. Fourthly, the denial of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension is not only violative of statutory provisions but also violates the petitioner’s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The counsel for the State submitted that during posting of the petitioner as In-charge Headmaster of Middle School, Kochahasa, Karpi Block, serious complaints were received regarding petitioner’s conduct,
including the allegation that he remained absent from the school at Kinjar without any intimation to the competent authorities and that irregularities were found in the implementation of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme under his supervision. The entire departmental proceeding starting from suspension order, submission of the inquiry report, passing of the punishment order till the passing of appellate order are strictly in accordance with law after following the due process and that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice.

Justice Sinha noted that the record disclosed that the petitioner was served with two separate charge-memos on two different occasions. The first was issued by the then District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad, on May 6, 2010, and the second by the District Superintendent of Education, Arwal, on June 4, 2011.  Though issued on separate dates, both charge-memos substantially contain the same set of allegations. However, it appeared that the inquiry was conducted only with reference to the second charge memo issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Arwal. The Block Education Officer, Kurtha, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Block Education Officer, Karpi as Presenting officer. The allegations put forth against the petitioner as evident from memo of charge dated June 4, 2011 were as follows:-
(I) While functioning as the In-charge Headmaster of Middle School, Kinjhar, the petitioner remained absent from the school on 09.02.2010 without giving any prior information or obtaining permission from the competent authority.
(ii) During the period of his suspension vide Memo No. 494 dated 17.02.2010 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad, the petitioner did not report at the Headquarters as required under the suspension order.
(iii)That the petitioner disobeyed the directions issued by the Superior officers, appointing officers as well as controlling officers.
(iv) That the petitioner did not comply with Memo No. 493 dated 14.05.2010 thereby violating the order of the superior authority.
(v) During his functioning as the Headmaster, irregularities were committed by the petitioner in the 

He observed: "From perusal of the memo of charge, it would be evident that neither the charge-memos contains the statutory particulars required under Rule 17(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules. The charge-memos does not have any list of documents or list of witnesses as required by Rule 17(3) by whom the charges were proposed to be proved. The absence of these essential ingredients goes to the very root of the proceeding, for without being apprised of the documentary and oral evidence proposed to be relied upon. In order to sustain the charges, the delinquent cannot be expected to defend himself effectively. This Court
therefore finds that the very initiation of the departmental proceeding suffers from a foundational illegality." 

Justice Sinha observed: "19. It further appears that neither the petitioner nor the respondents have placed the inquiry report on record. In the absence of the report, this Court is unable to satisfy itself as to whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with law, whether evidence was led in support of the charges, or whether the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceeding. The stand of the petitioner is that no notice of hearing was ever served upon him by the Enquiry Officer and that he was never given an opportunity to offer his defence. It is also his specific case that the disciplinary authority did not issue any second show-cause notice along with a copy of the inquiry report prior to imposition of the punishment, which is mandatory requirement under CCA Rules. These assertions have not been specifically denied on behalf of the State, and in the absence of such, the submissions of the petitioner is to be accepted."

Supreme Court upholds judgement by Justice P. B. Bajanthri which had set aside judgement by Justice Madhuresh Prasad

In The State of Bihar & Ors vs. Fuldev Yadav (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi passed an order dated August 14, 2025, wherein, it upheld the 5-page long judgement dated April 17, 2025 in Fuldev Yadav vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025) by Patna High Court's Division Bench comprising of Justices P. B. Bajanthri and S. B. Prasad Singh which had set aside the 8-page long judgement dated August 25, 2022 by Justice Madhuresh Prasad of the High Court. Supreme Court's order reads:"1) Delay condoned. 2) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we see no reason and ground to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed." 

Justice Prasad had heard the writ application which was filed for quashing of order dated June 25, 2019 passed by the Director-in-Chief (Disease Control), Directorate of Health Services, Government of Bihar, whereby the services of the petitioner as "Ambulance Driver" wasfound to be void ab initio. The petitioner claimed that he was engaged on daily wages basis as ambulance driver on July 10, 1989, which date was evident from Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition. The petitioner also claimed that his services were regularized on the post of driver by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani under memo dated August 2, 1991 bearing no.1789. Some appointments came under scrutiny of Lokayukt, Bihar, Patna, wherein a report was submitted by the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani. The petitioner's appointment was considered to be in accordance with law in the proceedings before the Lokayukt, Bihar, however, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on May 28, 2019 by the Director-in-Chief (Disease Control), Health Services, Bihar, regarding the validity of the petitioner's appointment. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice by his reply which was received on June 1, 2019. The petitioner's responded to it. His response was not found satisfactory. The petitioner's appointment was found to be void ab initio. His services were terminated by the impugned order. The petitioner's counsel had relied  on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. 

The respondents relied on the  decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Others vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad in Civil Appeal No. 8649 of 2018 which in the opinion of Justice Prasad was correct.

The other respondents were:Principal Secretary, Heath Department, Government of Bihar, Director-in-Chief (Disease Control), Directorate, Health Services, Bihar, Deputy Director, Health Services, Bihar, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani, In Charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Khutawna, Madhubani and the In-Charge Medical Officer, Referral Hospital, Foolparas, Madhubani. 

It appeared to Justice Prasad that the case in question was covered by this said decision of the Supreme Court and it was a case where the order of appointment itself from its very inception lacks any sanctity whatsoever. Justice Prasad quoted paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Court in the case of Kirti Narayan Prasad (supra) which reads as follows:-
“17. In the instant cases the writ petitioners have filed the petitions before the High Court with a specific prayer to regularize their service and to set aside the order of termination of their services. They have also challenged the report submitted by the State Committee. The real controversy is whether the writ petitioners were legally and validly appointed. The finding of the State Committee is that many writ petitioners had secured appointment by producing fake or forged appointment letter or had been inducted in Government service surreptitiously by concerned Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer by issuing a posting order. The writ petitioners are the beneficiaries of illegal orders made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer. The genuineness of their appointment and to show cause. None of them could establish the genuineness or legality of their appointment before the State Committee. The State Committee on appreciation of the materials on record has opined that their appointment was illegal and void ab initio. We do not find any ground to disagree with the finding of the State Committee. In the circumstances, the question of regularisation of their services by invoking para 53 of the judgment in Umadevi (supra) does not arise. Since the appointment of the petitioners is ab initio void, they cannot be said to be the civil servants of the State. Therefore, holding disciplinary proceedings envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution or under any other disciplinary rules shall not arise. ”

Justice Prasad had concluded: '14. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition for the reasons indicated hereinabove. 15. The writ application is accordingly dismissed.' 

The High Court's Division Bench of Justices Bajanthri and Singh set aside the judgement by Justice Prasad. It observed: The learned Single Judge has committed error in not noticing that there is no withdrawal/cancellation/modifying/ reviewing the regularization order dated 02.08.1991 vide Memo bearing No.1789. As long as regularization order dated 02.08.1991 is not cancelled or reviewed in the manner known to the law and merely relying on Hon’ble Supreme Court decision to the effect that appointment is illegal and void ab initio cannot be held. As long as regularization order dated 02.08.1991 vide Memo bearing No.1789 is intact and it is even to this day in vogue, therefore, the respondents cannot resort short circuit method. Further, it is to be noticed that if there are errors committed by the Appointing Authority/ Regularizing Authority in that event appellant shall not be penalized. No inquiry or finality has attained insofar as taking action against such of those officials who have undertaken the exercise of appointment and regularization." The judgement was authored by Justice Bajanthri. 

It also observed: "it is to be noticed that appellant has discharged the duties of the post of Driver, that too in the Hospital and it is an essential service. After extracting services for these many years and for no fault on his part, he should not be punished. In fact, after regularization to the post of Driver on 02.08.1991, appellant would be regular holder of the post of Driver and he is a Government servant. Before passing any adverse order which has a civil consequences, in such circumstances, he is governed by Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The same should have been resorted to by the Disciplinary Authority/Appointing Authority. These are all statutory right vested with the Government servant. For permanent employee of the State of Bihar, if any action is required to be taken insofar as passing major penalty order like termination/dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement/withholding of increments with cumulative effect, invariably departmental inquiry should be resorted to for imposition of major penalty under Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The same has not been resorted to in the present case. These are all the relevant statutory provisions which have not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.08.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No.17382 of 2019 and the impugned termination order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the Director-in-Chief (Disease Control), Directorate of Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna, stand set aside. He is directed to restore the position of the appellant to the extent of reinstating him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, extend all service and monetary benefits during the intervening period from 25.06.2019 till reinstatement read with the arrears of payments are made within a period of three months." 

 

Justice Purnendu Singh as part of DB upholds verdict by Justice Anil Kumar Sinha in a CCA case from 1991

Supreme Court's decision in Ram Kishan vs. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 255) irrelevant in this CCA case? 

Justice Purnendu Singh as part of Division Bench led by Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar authored a 9-page long judgment dated July 1, 2025 wherein, he upheld the verdict by Justice Anil Kumar Sinha in Awadh Tiwari vs. The State of Bihar (2025). Justice Singh who authored the judgement observed:"...the appellant has not been able to show any illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. The Court finds no merit in the instant appeal. The appeal is dismissed."

In the year 1989 while posted as Junior Engineer in the Minor Distributory Division-IX, Ghatshila Camp, Galudih, as a result of an agreement entered into, M/s Barauni Tiles was required supply PCC tiles which the appellant was to receive. Awadh Tiwari, the appellant received the same, however without waiting for the quality test report of the tiles, payment was made to the contractor, causing financial loss to the government.

By an order contained in Resolution no.1691 dated July 17, 1991, a decision was taken to initiate a departmental proceeding against the appellant under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 which was subsequently converted into a proceeding under Rule 55A of the Rules. The appellant was served with a memo of charge according to which he during his tenure had received substandard tiles for the purpose of lining of canal. The tiles supplied at the ratio 1:2.97 of cement and sand against the specified ratio of 1:2. A sum of Rs.11,73,000/ had been paid to the contractor causing loss to the State exchequer. 

The charge was to the effect that the appellant was negligent and casual in his duty causing financial loss to the State. He had prepared the bill for payment to the contractor without getting the quality of the supplied tiles tested. The appellant submitted his reply to the show cause notice and on consideration of the contents thereof, the respondents came out with an order of punishment dated December 11, 1999 according to which there was stoppage of promotion for a period of ten years and further order of recovery of a sum to the tune of Rs.1,46,625.

The appellant had moved to the High Court in CWJC no.1015 of 2000 against the order of punishment which was allowed vide order dated February 17, 2006, the order of punishment quashed and the respondents were directed to refund the recovered amount on the basis of the said order to the appellant forthwith. 

The respondents preferred an appeal (LPA no.790 of 2007) against the order allowing the writ application (CWJC no.1015 of 2000). Though the judgment passed in the writ application was not interfered with and the appeal dismissed, however it was observed that if the law permits, the State of Bihar can proceed against the concerned employee in accordance with law.

The respondents included Secretary, Water Resources Department, Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department and Engineer-In-Chief Middle, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. 

The respondents came out with an order dated January 18, 2011 stating therein that a decision was taken to proceed against the appellant and two others under Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The chargesheet containing the charges was enclosed with the order, to which the appellant filed his reply.

When the appellant retired from service on May 31, 2011, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was converted into a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

The enquiry officer submitted his report dated January 12, 2012 not finding the charges to have been proved against the appellant. Disagreeing with the contents of the enquiry report, a detailed second show cause contained in Memo no.683 dated June 26, 2012 was issued under the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief (Central), Water Resources Department, which was brought on record with the counter affidavit of the respondents in the writ application.

The letter showed that the point of difference of the disciplinary authority with the report of the enquiry officer was two fold. Firstly, that inspite of the ratio of cement and sand in the tiles supplied by the contractor being 1:2.97 in place of the specified 1:2, steps had been taken by the appellant in the measurement book for payment to the contractor, though he should have obtained the directions of the higher authorities with respect to the quality test report and only thereafter should have proceeded to take steps for payment. The second point of difference was to the effect that a direction had been given to the Barauni Tiles i.e. the contractor to replace the tiles but the contractor had not carried out the directions. Inspite of having knowledge of this fact, the appellant proceeded to make entries in the measurement book and recommend for payment of amount to the contractor.

The appellant filed his response to the show cause notice dated June 26, 2012 of the disciplinary authority differing with the contents of the enquiry report. After considering the reply of the appellant, the respondents passed an order contained in Memo no.374 dated March 20, 2013 under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules imposing punishment of 5% pension. Following dismissal of the writ application preferred by the appellant against the order of punishment, the appeal was preferred.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that in the enquiry conducted in the departmental proceeding against the appellant, the enquiry officer in his report dated January 12, 2012 did not find any of the three charges to have been proved. Though the disciplinary authority issued a second show cause notice dated June 26, 2012, however no reason was given therein for differing with the contents of the enquiry report. It merely repeated the charges as contained in the chargesheet issued in the departmental proceeding. It was submitted that the second show cause notice as also the order of punishment are both unsustainable. The counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan vs. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 255). 

But Justice Singh observed:"So far as the judgment in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the same is of no assistance to the appellant herein, the facts of the two cases being distinct and distinguishable.While the instant case relates to steps of payment having been taken by the delinquent/appellant inspite of sub-quality tiles having been supplied by the contractor, the case cited relates to misconduct of the Constable/appellant therein of having facilitate supply of alcohol to an under-trial prisoner and of having abused his superior officer." 

Siya Ram Sahi and Shally Kumari were the counsels for the appellant. 

The appellant was proceeded against departmentally under the CCA Rules while still in service, on his retirement on May 31, 2011, the proceedings were converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The enquiry officer submitted his report on January 12, 2012 not finding any of the charges levelled against the appellant to have been proved. The disciplinary authority disagreeing with the contents of the enquiry report issued a second show cause notice to the appellant on June 26, 2012 to which the appellant submitted his reply. Not finding the reply to be satisfactory, another show cause notice was issued to the appellant on December 3, 2012 stating therein that it was proposed to impose a punishment on the appellant under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The appellant was given time of 15 days to submit his reply which was filed by the appellant on December 22, 2012. The reply of the appellant was not found satisfactory and the order of punishment was passed which was challenged unsuccessfully in the writ application before Justice Sinha, the single judge bench. 

The writ application was preferred against the order dated March 20, 2013 bearing Memo No.374 passed by Engineer-In-Chief (Central), Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby punishment of stoppage of 5% pension was imposed upon the petitioner in a departmental proceeding concluded under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. 

Before dismissing the writ application, in his 10-page long judgement dated March 14, 2023, Justice Sinha had observed:"...the Court while testing the validity of the order of the punishment is required to see the flaw into decision making process and cannot sit upon the decision itself as an appellate authority. Even assuming the aforesaid instruction of Cabinet (Vigilance) Department dated 06.07.1992 vide Memo No. 1045 is applicable in the case of the petitioner in relation to the permissible limit of difference in ratio up to 25% but the difference of ratio found by the Laboratory in the present case to the extent of 1:2.97 is more than the permissible limit of 25%. The petitioner has not pointed out any procedural infirmity and or violation of principle of natural justice in the departmental proceeding. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I come to the conclusion that the impugned order of punishment does not require any interference by this Court..."

The judgement by the Division Bench which upheld Justice Sinha's judgement appears to be a fit case for appeal in the Supreme Court.