Justice Partha Sarthy sets aside order by Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar for violating Rule 17, CCA Rules

In Anand Swarup vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary & Ors. (2026), Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 15-page long judgment dated April 21, 2026, wherein, he concluded:".... in the opinion of the Court, this is a case of no evidence against the petitioner as also in categorical violation of the provisions as contained in Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. 34. Thus in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, neither the order of dismissal contained in memo no.4295 dated 18.3.2016 issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar nor the order rejecting the review contained in memo no.10532 dated 1.8.2016 issued under the signature of the Special Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar are sustainable and are both quashed and set aside. 35. The petitioner is held entitled for all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary for the period of suspension as also for the period of dismissal. 66. The writ application is allowed.". 

Rule 17 of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 is as follows: "17. Procedure for imposing major penalties.
(1)No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses [(vi) to (xi)] [Substituted by Notification No. 3/M-166/2006-Ka-2797, dated 20.8.2007] of Rule 14 shall be made without holding an inquiry, as far as may be, in the manner provided in these Rules.
(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.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.
(3)Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a government servant under this Rule, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up-
(i)the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour as a definite and distinct article of charge;
(ii)a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain-
(a)a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government Servant;
(b)a list of such document by which, and a list of such witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.
(4)The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government Servant a copy of the articles of charge, such statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require the Government Servant to submit, within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person.
(5) (a)On receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority may himself inquire into such of the articles of charge which are not admitted, or, if it thinks necessary to appoint, under sub-rule (2) of this Rule, an inquiry authority for the purpose he may do so and where all the articles of charges have been admitted by the Government Servant in his written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority shall record his findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall take action in the manner laid down in Rule 18.
(b)If no written statement of defence is submitted by the Government Servant, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into the articles of charge or may, if it thinks necessary to appoint, under sub-rule (2) of this Rule an inquiry authority for the purpose, it may do so.
(c)Where the disciplinary authority itself inquires into any article of charge or appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry about such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a government servant or a legal practitioner to be known as the "Presenting officer' to present on his behalf the case in support of the articles of charge.
(6)The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward the following records to the inquiring authority-
(i)a copy of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour;
(ii)a copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the government servant:
(iii)a copy of the statement of witnesses, if any, specified in sub-rule (3) of this Rule.
(iv)evidence proving the delivery of the documents specified to in sub-Rule (3) to the Government Servant; and
(v) a copy of the order appointing the "Presenting officer".
(7)The Government Servant shall appear in person before the inquiring authority on such day and at such time within ten working days from the date of receipt by him of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, as the inquiring authority may, by a notice in writing, specify in this behalf or within such further time, not exceeding ten days, as may be specified by the inquiring authority.
(8) (a)The Government Servant may take the assistance of other Government Servant posted in any office, either at his headquarter or at the place where the inquiry is to be held, to present the case on his behalf:
Provided that he may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits:Provided also that the Government Servant may take the assistance of any other Government Servant posted at any other station, if the inquiring authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, and for reasons to be recorded in writing so permits:Provided further that the Government Servant shall not take the assistance of any such other Government Servant who has three pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance.
(b)The Government Servant may take the assistance of a retired government servant to present the case on his behalf, subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Government from time to time by general or special order in this behalf.
(9)If the Government Servant, who has not admitted any of the articles of charge in his written statement of defence or has not submitted any written statement of defence, appears before the inquiring authority, such authority shall ask him whether he is guilty or has to say anything for his defence and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge, the inquiring authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the Government Servant thereon.
(10)The inquiring authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the Government Servant pleads guilty.
(11)The inquiring authority shall, if the Government Servant fails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits to plead, require the Presenting Officer to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charge, and shall adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding thirty days, after recording an order that the Government Servant may, for the purpose of preparing his defence,-
(i)inspect within five days of the order or within such further time not exceeding five days as the inquiring authority may allow, the documents specified in the list in sub-rule (3);
(ii)submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf;
Note:-If the Government Servant applies in writing for the supply of copies of the statements of witnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (3), the inquiring authority shall furnish him with such copies as early as possible.
(iii)give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time as the inquiring authority may allow for the discovery or production of any documents which are in the possession of Government but not mentioned in the list specified in sub-rule (3) of this Rule:
Provided that the Government Servant shall indicate the relevance of the documents required by him to be discovered or produced by the Government.
(12)The inquiring authority shall, on receipt of the notice for the discovery or production of documents, forward the same or copies thereof to the authority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept, with a requisition for the production of the document by such date as may be specified in such requisition:Provided that the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, refuse to requisition such of the documents as are, in its opinion, not relevant to the case.
(13)On receipt of the requisition specified in sub-rule (12) of this Rule, every authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents shall produce the same before the inquiring authority:Provided that if the authority, having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents, is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the production of all or any of such documents will be against public interest or security of the State, he shall inform the inquiring authority accordingly and the inquiring authority shall, on being so informed, communicate the information to the Government Servant and withdraw the requisition made by it for the production or discovery of such documents.
(14)On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the Government Servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter, without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses, as it thinks fit.
(15)If it shall appear necessary before the close of the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the inquiring authority may, in his discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the Government Servant or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness and in such case the Government Servant shall be entitled to have, if he demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned. The inquiring authority shall give the Government Servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record. The inquiring authority may also allow the Government Servant to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interests of justice:Provided that new evidence shall not be permitted or called for or any witness shall not be recalled to supplement the evidence. Such evidence may be called for if there is any inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence, produced originally.
(16)When the case for the disciplinary authority is closed, the Government Servant shall be required to state his defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the Government Servant shall be required to sign the record. In either case a copy of the statement of defence shall be given to the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed.
(17)The evidence on behalf of the Government Servant shall then be produced. The Government Servant may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the Government Servant shall then be examined and they shall be liable to examination, cross-examination and, re-examination by the inquiring authority according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for the disciplinary authority.
(18)The inquiring authority may, after the Government Servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government Servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government Servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
(19)The inquiring authority may, after the completion of the production of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed and the Government Servant, or permit them to file written briefs of their respective case, if they so desire.
(20)If the Government Servant to whom a copy of the articles of charge has been delivered, does not submit the written statement of defence on or before the date specified for the purpose or does not appear in person before the inquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this Rule, the inquiring authority may hold the inquiry ex-parte.
(21) (a)Where a disciplinary authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 14 [but not competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses [(vi) to (xi)] [Substituted by Notification No. 3/M-166/2006-Ka-2797, dated 20.8.2007.] of Rule 14], has himself inquired into or caused to be inquired into the article of any charge and that authority having regard to his own findings or having regard to its decision on any of the findings of any inquiring authority appointed by it, is of the opinion that the penalties specified in clauses [(vi) to (xi)] [Substituted by Notification No. 3/M-166/2006-Ka-2797, dated 20.8.2007.] of Rule 14 should be imposed on the government servant, that authority shall forward the records of the inquiry to such disciplinary authority as is competent to impose the penalties mentioned in clause [(vi) to (xi)] [Substituted by Notification No. 3/M-166/2006-Ka-2797, dated 20.8.2007.] of Rule 14.
(b)The disciplinary authority to which the records are so forwarded may act on the evidence on the records or may, if he is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses is necessary in the interests of justice, recall the witnesses and examine, cross-examine and re-examine the witnesses and may impose on the Government Servant such penalties as it may deem fit in accordance with these Rules.
(22) Whenever any inquiring authority, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded by another inquiring authority which has and which exercises, such jurisdiction the inquiring authority so succeeding may act on the basis of evidence so recorded by its predecessor, or partly recorded by its predecessor and partly recorded by itself:Provided that if the succeeding inquiring authority is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interest of justice, it may recall, examine, cross-examine and reexamine any such witnesses as hereinbefore provided.
(23) (i)After the conclusion of the inquiry, a record shall be prepared and it shall contain:-
(a)the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour;
(b)the defence of the Government Servant in respect of each article of charge.
(c)an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge,
(d)the findings on each article of charge and the reasons thereof.
Explanation. - If in the opinion of the inquiring authority the proceedings of the inquiry may establish any article of charge different from the original articles of the charge, he may record his findings on such article of charge:Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the Government Servant has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge.
(ii)The inquiring authority, where it is not itself the disciplinary authority, shall forward to the disciplinary authority the records of inquiry which shall include-
(a)the report prepared by it under clause (i) of this sub rule;
(b)the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the Government Servant;
(c)the oral and documentary evidence produced in the course of the inquiry;
(d)written briefs, if any, filed by the Presenting Officer or the Government Servant or both during the course of the inquiry; and
(e)the orders, if any, made by the disciplinary authority and the inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry."

The respondents in the Anand Swarup case had come out with the order of punishment dated March 18, 2016 under the signature of the Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar dismissing the petitioner from service.

10. The review preferred by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the Special Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar.

11. It is against the order of dismissal dated 18.3.2016 and the order rejecting the review application on 1.8.2016 that the petitioner has preferred the instant writ application. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the enquiry report dated 16.7.2015 and reinstating him in service with all back wages.

It was submitted by Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner being an Officer of the Bihar Administrative Service was appointed by the

Governor of Bihar. The memo of charge as came to be issued by the Under Secretary of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar. 

The other four respondents were: Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government. of Bihar,Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, Special Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar and Commissioner of Departmental Enquiry, Bihar. 

The petitioner had prayed for quashing of the resolution contained in memo no. 4295 dated 18.3.2016 whereby and where under the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of dismissal from service and no payment during the period of suspension except subsistence. 

Justice Sarthy relied on Supreme Court's judgement in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank; (2009) 2 SCC 570, wherein, it held :-“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.”

The petitioner, was a Block Development Officer, had no role to play in the appointment of a Panchayat Shikshak and was acquitted in the criminal case in the trial Court.

A perusal of the order dated March 18, 2016 inflicting the punishment of dismissal from service of the petitioner showed that additional charges were levelled against him that instead of acting on the request for guidelines received from the panchayat office, in conspiracy with the staff of the panchayat, he got the matter with respect to appointment of the complainant sent to the Block and kept it pending there.

The disciplinary authority stated that when the petitioner did not take any positive action in getting the matter sent back to the panchayat and left it pending in the Block Office, by remaining a silent spectator, even though he did not take any bribe himself, he was in league with them.  The conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authority in the order of punishment reveals that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved against him but the petitioner was punished for his inaction which was not part of the charge. 

The order passed in review on August 1, 2016 did not deal with nor answers the submissions raised by counsel for the petitioner. The authority considering the review filed by the petitioner was of the opinion that the petitioner should have acted on his junior officers i.e., the Block Education Extension Officer who was demanding bribe from the complainant. Justice Sarthy recorded that "It may be reiterated that this was not the charge in the memo of charge in the instant departmental proceeding."

Justice Sarthy referred to the judgment of High Court's Division Bench in Devendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (judgment dated October 19, 2023 passed in LPA no.1302 of 2017). He observed:"...none of the charges against the petitioner were proved as required in law and the Conducting Officer erred in coming to the conclusion that charge no.2 was proved."

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.
 

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." 

 

Action under criminal justice system and under service jurisprudence may run together: Justice Dr. Anshuman, Patna High Court

In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State Of Bihar, Justice Dr. Anshuman observed, "this Court is of the firm view that action under criminal justice system and under service jurisprudence may run together...The official shall be at liberty to continue the departmental and criminal proceeding simultaneously, but shall only take care that findings of a criminal case and findings of service matters should be different and their standard of provings are also different." 

The petition has been filed for staying the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner pursuant to memo of charge dated April 13,2017 till completion of the criminal case based on the same set of facts and charges and evidences.

The writ petition was disposed off directing the authorities to proceed in accordance with law and under strict guideline of Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. Notably, the Court that had passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner vide memo of charge dated April 13, 2017 but it reversed it after the final hearing. The judgement was passed on March 6, 2024. The petitioner's counsel Amit Kumar and Nilotpal Sharma, the counsel for the State, the respondent made their submissions.

The Court had to decide whether the department proceeding and criminal case on the same set of allegations can run simultaneously or not. The Court observed, "the position of law is very clear that criminal jurisprudence tests the ingredients of the action which constitute a crime beyond all reasonable doubts, whereas, the departmental proceeding tests the imputation of the work done by the employees against the employer in violation of terms of services in which employee has to work. Therefore, the event
may be same, but the test for criminal jurisprudence and service jurisprudence are distinct and varies from case to case."