PIL not maintainable in service matters: Patna High Court's Chief Justice Bench

In Rana Ranjit vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 6-page long judgment dated August 22, 2025. This is the 25th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice concluded:"the present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in view of the aforesaid decision. 13. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed."

The petitioner had prayed that the order dated June 30, 2025 issued under signature of the respondent- Additional Secretary, whereby cumulative 132 personnel of the Urban Development and Housing Department were transferred, be quashed. The petitioner had also prayed that appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to ensure that the directions issued by the respondent-Election Commission of India in Clause 8 of memo dated June 24, 2025 under Article 324 of the Constitution of India is complied with.

It was submitted that in view of the pending Assembly Election in the State of Bihar, the Election Commission of India issued memo, whereby Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the Electoral Rolls of each Assembly Constituency in the State of Bihar was to be conducted in the exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India and under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Election Commission of India has directed that the Chief Secretary shall ensure that CEO/ DEO/ ERO/ AERO/ BLO supervisor/ BLO and other officers involved in preparation of electoral rolls are
adequately supported with manpower and resources and further that during the revision period, the Chief Secretary shall ensure that no post notified as DEO/ ERO/ AERO is vacant and no such officer is transferred without prior approval of the Commission.

It was contended that the order of transfer is in violation of the letter issued by the Election Commission of India and therefore, the said order be quashed and thereby appropriate direction be issued to the respondent authority. 

The counsel of the respondents-State pointed out from the record that in the impugned order of transfer itself, it was stated that the said order is subject to approval of the Election Commission of India. 

Relying on para 15 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the counsel submitted: “15. Even as regards the filing of a public interest litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Neetu v. State of Punjab).”

 

Government not complying with High Court's judgement against encroachment made in Mahi river, Sonepur, Saran

In Ranjan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar,  & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 5-page long judgment dated August 22, 2025. This is the 24th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice. 

Justice Pancholi concluded:"We are of the view that this Court has time and again issued directions to the respondent-authorities and, therefore, now it is the duty of the respondent-authority to comply with the said orders. 9. If the petitioner is of the view that the earlier orders of this Court have not been complied with by the concerned authority, it is always open for the concerned party to proceed in contempt before the concerned court. 10. Even otherwise, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has submitted that, as per the observation made by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10078 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024, the encroachment will be removed after following due procedure of law and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any reason to keep the petition pending. 11. The respondent-authority shall take appropriate action against the encroachers after following due procedure. 12. Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of."

The petition was filed in the nature of  Public Interest Litigation.The petitioner had stated in the memo of petition that encroachment has been made in river Mahi. Therefore, the petitioner filed the petition with a prayer that appropriate direction be issued to the concerned authorities to protect the land/way of Mahi river situated north of Sabalpur, Sonepur, Saran which is the solitary resource of drainage of water in rainy season. 

Blacklisting of Manglam Infra and Engineering Ltd is justified: Chief Justice Pancholi led bench

In Manglam Infra and Engineering Ltd vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 18-page long judgment dated August 22, 2025. This is the 23rd judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice.  Justice Pancholi dismissed the petition saying,"we are not inclined to entertain the present petition."

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner had prayed that the order dated December 18, 2024, passed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary (Respondent No.2) be quashed and the respondents be restrained from giving effect to the order during pendency of the petition. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company was engaged in providing consultancy services for various construction work. It was stated that agreement dated December 27, 2021 was executed between the petitioner and Respondent No.2 for providing consultancy services for project management and construction supervision of bridges on rural road in the State of Bihar at a financial rate of Rs.8,16,00,000.00 excluding GST. It was stated that the schedule for completion of the task under the agreement was two years with the possibility of extension based on the project requirement and satisfactory performance. The petitioner had averred that the agreement was never extended and, as such, in terms of Clause 9 of the agreement, the said agreement expired on December 27, 2023 without any adverse report or complaint against the petitioner. It was stated that after the expiry of the agreement and after the petitioner ceased to have supervisory control over the construction works, the Engineer-in-Chief, vide his letter dated July 18, 2024 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner seeking clarification as to why the services being provided by the petitioner firm be not treated as unsatisfactory. The reasons stated in the said show-cause is that there was damage to an under construction bridge under Package No. BR01P2R –49 (T05–Nepal Border Jhala Chowky Jakirparast, Last Border) (Construction of HL Bridge at CH – 33.20 K.M. over River alignment, Length of Bridge 182.65 Meter) which got damaged on June 18, 2024. 

The petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice on July 23, 2024. Two months thereafter, the petitioner received communication dated September 10, 2024 from Respondent No.2 in which Respondent No.2 placed reliance on preliminary report submitted by four members inspection team and asked the petitioner to show-cause as to why: (i) The performance security be not forfeited; (ii) All the pending payments be not stopped in terms of Clause 8(ii) of the agreement; and (iii) The penalty amount be not recovered on account of damage caused to the bridge.

It was also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner sent an e-mail dated September 12, 2024 and requested for copy of the preliminary inspection report. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted reply. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the complete copy of inspection report was never furnished. The petitioner thereafter submitted reply on September 30, 2024. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Additional Secretary passed the impugned order on December 18, 2024 by relying upon Clause Nos.8, 13 and 16 of the agreement and proceeded to debar the petitioner from participating in all future tenders and further blacklisted the agency for a period of five years. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the petition. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that before passing the impugned order, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and, in fact, there is no provision in the agreement for blacklisting the petitioner company. 

The petitioner's counsel had relied on the decisions by the Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105, UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. vs. Food Corpn. of India, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551, Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1896 and Techno Prints vs. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 343.  

Justice Pancholi observed: "14. Looking to the seriousness of the matter, which is in connection with damage of the bridge because of poor quality of construction, which was not properly supervised, and as per the provisions contained in the agreement, when the respondent department has taken action of blacklisting the petitioner as per the agreement and after following the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that the aforesaid decisions would not be helpful to the petitioner." 

P.K. Shahi, the Advocate General for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had alternative remedy as per Clause 17 of the agreement and, therefore, in case of any dispute between the parties, the same was required to be amicably settled. He also submitted that if the dispute is not settled amicably, the matter is required to be referred to the Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. 

Justice Pancholi's judgement recorded: "it is revealed that the petitioner was under obligation to submit monthly progress report regarding condition/status of bridges coming under his supervision and in the monthly progress submitted by the petitioner it was reported that Araria bridge (bridge in question) was constructed with good quality and remarked as “OK”. However, thereafter it was found that Araria bridge was damaged on 18.06.2024 and, therefore, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner submitted reply on 23.07.2024. It is relevant to observe that the damaged bridge was inspected by the departmental investigation team from 21.06.2024 to 23.06.2024 in which the quality of the bridge was not found satisfactory and, therefore, the preliminary investigation report was submitted by the said team on 30.07.2024....In fact, it is revealed from the record that the investigation of the damaged bridge was carried out by the Testing and Research Institute, Road Construction Department, Technical Examiner Cell Monitoring Department and IIT Patna." 

He also recorded that during the said investigation, "it was revealed that the material, concrete and reinforcement used in the construction work were found to be not up to the standard, despite which, the petitioner submitted report as everything is “OK”....8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that when the committee of experts consisting of four different department investigated the bridge and when Araria bridge, i.e., the bridge in question, was found damaged on 18.06.2024, the respondent authorities were justified in initiating action under different clauses of the agreement and show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of blacklisting. We are of the view that there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner."
 

Justice Harish Kumar's judgement is error free: Chief Justice Vipul Pancholi led bench

In The State of Bihar, through, The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar & Ors. Upendra Sharma. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 22-page long judgment dated August 19, 2025. This is the 22nd judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice.  Justice Pancholi concluded:"we are of the view that learned Single Judge has committed error while passing the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. 26. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, allowed." 

In Upendra Sharma vs. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2024), Justice Harish Kumar, the Single Judge had passed a 3-page long judgement dated September 3, 2024 concluded:"this Court has left with no option but to direct respondent no.3, the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad, to ensure payment of aforesaid GPF amount along with up-to-date interest as well as Group Insurance amount within a period of six weeks from today. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction."   

The respondent was the original writ-petitioner who had preferred the captioned writ petition before the High Court. In the said writ petition, the writ-petitioner had mainly contended that the respondent/original writ-petitioner was provisionally appointed to the post of Health Servant by order dated 07.07.1989 under the signature of Regional Director, Health Service, Magadh Division, Gaya. The service of the respondent/original writ-petitioner was confirmed vide order dated 09.06.1994 under the signature of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad. Thereafter, respondent/original writ-petitioner was posted in the Primary Health Centre, Madanpur, Aurangabad. However, after a period of 14 years from the date of his appointment, his services came to be terminated vide order dated 28.06.2003 under the signature of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad. It was the case of the respondent/original writ-petitioner that his services were terminated without following due procedure of law and by violating Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Respondent/original writ-petitioner, therefore, challenged the said action of the State by filing CWJC No. 8083 of 2003 before this Court. It was also stated by the respondent/original writ-petitioner that the petition filed by the respondent/original writ-petitioner was finally heard along with other similar type of matters filed by similarly situated employees and the said matters were disposed of vide common order dated 08.09.2003. Writ petitions were allowed by the Single Judge and thereafter the respondent/original writ-petitioner was reinstated in service. It was further the case of the respondent/original writ-petitioner that thereafter service of the respondent/original writ-petitioner was again terminated along with others by referring to the order passed in LPA No. 969 of 2003, wherein the respondent/original writ-petitioner was not party. 

Finally, the High Court passed an order in LPA No. 1202 of 2010 preferred by the State, which was allowed vide order dated 24.09.2014 and thereafter the respondent/original writ-petitioner was again terminated vide order dated 10.10.2014. The respondent/original writ-petitioner thereafter preferred SLP(C) No. 29306 of 2014 before the Supreme Court against the order dated 24.09.2014 passed in LPA No. 1202 of 2010. It was stated in Paragraph 20 of the memo of the petition that the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent/original writ-petitioner was decided against the respondent/original writ-petitioner by the Supreme Court along with other matters by order dated 17.10.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 and allied matters.

In this background of the litigation, the respondent/original writ-petitioner had filed the captioned petition in which it was stated that the respondent/original writ-petitioner is entitled to get statutory benefit of Group Insurance and General Provident Fund pursuant to letter bearing Memo No. 571(4) dated 01.07.2020 issued under the signature of Director-in-Chief (Disease Control, Public Health Para Medicals) Health Services, Bihar. The grievance of the respondent/original writ-petitioner in the writ petition was that though the respondent/original writ-petitioner is entitled to get the statutory benefit of GPF as well as Group Insurance, the said benefits were denied to him, whereas similar type of benefits were given to the other similarly situated persons who were also petitioner before the Supreme Court. 

Scope of judicial review in contractual/tender matters is very limited: Chief Justice Vipul Pancholi led bench

In Madhav Construction, a proprietary concern, vs. The Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.& Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 10-page long judgment dated August 14, 2025. This is the 21st judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice.  Justice Pancholi concluded:"....we are of the view that respondent-Corporation has not committed any error while rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner....it is well settled that the scope of judicial review while considering the contractual/tender matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. This Court cannot sit in appeal over a decision taken by the  concerned respondent authority. In the present case, we see no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent- Corporation while rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed."

The petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner had prayed that the decision taken by the respondent Technical Committee of the respondent Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. in its meeting dated July  7, 2025 to the extent that the technical bid of the petitioner with regard to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. 03 Year 2025-26 dated 14.05.2025 [Serial No. 21], by which the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected, be set aside.

General condition of tender cannot be termed as ‘arbitrary’: Chief Justice Pancholi led bench

In M/s Vivid Offset through its partner Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, & Ors.(2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 48-page long judgment dated August 13, 2025. This is the 20th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice.  Justice Pancholi concluded:"we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities, while exercising powers under Article- 226 of the Constitution of India. 34. Accordingly, all these writ petitions stand dismissed" 

Justice Pancholi observed:"it cannot be said that the respondents have passed the impugned orders without issuing the show cause notice. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the present cases, the petitioners have to supply the books for Class-I to Class-VIII within the stipulated time and before the academic year starts and, therefore, time is the essence of contract. Further, as observed hereinabove, out of 57 printers, except the present petitioners, all the other printers have supplied 100% or more than 86% books within the stipulated time. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present cases, it can be said that exercise of powers under Clause-12(A) of the General Condition of Tender by the respondent cannot be termed as ‘arbitrary’. From the impugned orders, it cannot be said that there is non-application of mind on the part of the respondent authorities while passing the said orders. Further, it is well settled that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the respondent authority in contract matters and the scope of judicial review in such type of cases is very limited. We are of the view that the decisions upon which reliance has been placed by the learned advocates for the petitioners would not render any assistance to them in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case." 

The petitioners' counsel had relied on Supreme Court's decisions in All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, reported in 1953 SCC OnLine Bom 90, Isolators And Isolators though its proprietor Sandhya Mishra vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited And Another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 607, Subodh Executive Officer & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682, Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar, (1989) 1 SCC 229, Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of W.B., (1975) 1 SCC 70, Nasir Ahmad vs. Custodian (Evacuee Property), (1980) 3 SCC 1, UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Food Corpn. of India, (2021) 2 SCC 551, Kranti Associates [(2010) 9 SCC 496: (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 852],  Khem Chand vs. Union of India [AIR 1958 SC 300], Haryana Financial Corpn. vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja [(2008) 9 SCC 31 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 789], B. Karunakar [ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727: 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704], Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 and Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427. 

The petition was heard as part of the batch of writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the order of blacklisting passed by the respondent against respective petitioners for a period of one year. The issue involved in these petitions were similar and the same was disposed of by a common judgment. 

The Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Limited (Corporation) had issued E notice inviting tender (NIT) from eligible printers for printing and supply of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) text books for Class-I to Class-VIII Class/ Standardwise, Districtwise and Languagewise under SSA for the academic year 2025-2026 which will be delivered to 548 Block Resources Centres in 38 districts within the State of Bihar. The petitioner had participated in the said NIT and was declared successful. The work order dated November 14, 2024 for printing, binding, set making and supply of text book of Hindi, Urdu and mixed medium under Package-52 for Class-VI in the districts of Araria, Banka and West Champaran was issued. Similarly, another work order for Package-58 for Class-VII in the districts of Begusarai, Samastipur and Sheohar was also issued in favour of the petitioner. 

It was the case of the petitioner that the respondents had finally approved the dummy/proof of books and intimated the final date of approval of books on 03.12.2024. Similarly, on 06.12.2024, the Managing Director, Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd, the respondent No. 6 had approved the books of other printers. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that the concerned respondent, from time to time, changed the cover page, design and size of books and, therefore, various correspondences took place between the parties. It was stated that final date of approval of books was 27.12.2024 and as per Clause-8.1 of the tender document, printers shall have to deliver the books to concerned Blocks within 105 days from the date of final approval of dummy/proof and as per Clause-12(A) (i) of the tender document, no penalty would be levied till 15 days from completion of 105 days. Thus, the printers shall have to deliver the books at the destination within 120 days of approval by respondent No. 6. 

Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd, the Respondent No. 5 had issued a show cause notice on 17.02.2025 to the concerned printers in light of Clause-8 Part-II Note (iii). It was mentioned therein that Corporation reserves its right to withdraw upto 50% of the contract/work order, if the printer did not complete 50% of quantum of total contract on 75th day from the date of approval of final proof reading without issuing any prior notice. It was also the case of the petitioner that on 05.03.2025 respondent No. 5 had directed the petitioner to print and supply 5 extra books of Urdu/mixed medium along with diary Hindi medium. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 issued show cause notice dated 05.03.2025 and asked to show cause for not delivering 50% books of total contract. Immediately thereafter, on 18.03.2025 respondent No. 5 published a chart along with percentage of delivery of books and convened a meeting of printers with direction to appear with up-to-date progress report. Thereafter, once again on 25.03.2025 respondent No. 5 issued show cause notice to the petitioner about non-supplying the books on time. The petitioner had also stated that on 21.04.2025, respondent No. 5 had issued show cause to the petitioner for initiation of process for blacklisting the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted reply on 24.04.2025. Thereafter, on 30.04.2025 respondent No. 5 issued 2nd show cause notice to the petitioner for blacklisting, to which the petitioner gave reply. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 had blacklisted the petitioner vide order dated18.06.2025 for a period of one year.  

As a consequence, the petitioner filed the petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the order dated 18.06.2025, passed by respondent No. 5 by which the petitioner was blacklisted for a period of one year. He had also prayed that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to take part in the new tender published online vide tender Notice No. 620 dated 05.06.2025 during pendency of the writ petition. 

Notably, the Court referred to David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987), Harvard Law Review, 731-37. and doctrine of fairness in decision-making, as a component of human rights which was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. It drew on decision in Ruiz Torija vs. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553], EHRR at p. 562, para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 : 2001 ICR 847 (CA)] , wherein the Court had referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, ‘adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions’. 

Justice Partha Sarthy of Division Bench led by Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi upholds order by Dr. Anshuman against Home Ministry

In The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.vs. Keshav Kumar (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 9-page long judgment dated August 12, 2025. This judgement was authored by Justice Justice Parha Sarthy upheld the 7-page long order dated September 26, 2024 by Dr. Anshuman, the Single Judge who had set  aside the order of punishment as also the orders passed in appeal/revision/review in Keshav Kumar vs. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. (2024).  

Justice Sarthy partly allowed the appeal with the liberty to the appellant/Union of India to initiate the disciplinary enquiry afresh from the stage of appointing the Presenting Officer. The judgement reads: "16. On commencement of the departmental proceeding, the respondent shall be placed under suspension and during the period of suspension he shall be paid subsistence allowance. So far as payment of arrears of pay/salary/allowances for the period of suspension/dismissal are concerned, the same shall be decided by the respondent- authorities. The departmental proceeding shall be concluded at the earliest preferably within a period of six months. 17. The appeal stands disposed of with the above observations and directions." The Court found merit in the submissions made by Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the Union of India. It condoned a delay of 69 days in filing of the appeal. 

Earlier Dr. Anshuman had passed the order upon hearing the writ petition filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Commandant, RTC, C.R.P.F., Rajgir vide Letter No. P. VIII -1/2016- Estt.-II (KK) dated August 23, 2016 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service and further to quash the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General, RTC, C.R.P.F., Rajgir, Vide Memo No. R-XIII-1/2016- Estt.-2(K.K.) dated November 20, 2016 by which the appeal of the petitioner was rejected. Further prayer has been made to quash Letter No. P. VIII -1/2019- DA-21 dated September 5, 2019 by which the petitioner has been informed that his revision application was rejected by the Inspector General (Training), CRPF Directorate, Central Reserve Police Force as it was time barred. The petitioner had also prayed for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the entire departmental proceedings including the appellate order was passed without following the due procedure of law. He also submitted that upon bare reading of the enquiry report, it became crystal clear that the departmental proceeding was conducted ex-parte without appointing of Presenting Officer which was not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submitted that from the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated November 20, 2016, it transpired that the Appellate Authority had accepted the fact in paragraph 10 of the order that there was no requirement of Presenting Officer in this case, as this case was proceeded as ex-parte and there shall be no effect on the enquiry. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had expressly pleaded that as the enquiry was conducted without appointment of the Presenting Officer, the inquiry proceeding is null and void. It was pointed out that Union of India's counter affidavit gave a an evasive reply. It did not deny that the Presenting Officer was not appointed.

The counsel for the petitioner relied on paragraph 6 of 10-page long judgment dated September 12, 2018 by the Division Bench of Justices Dr Ravi Ranjan and Madhuresh Prasad of the High Court in Union of India through Director General, C.R.P.F., New Delhi & Ors vs. Sudhanshu Sekhar Deo in L.P.A. No. 955 of 2014. It clearly stated that Non-appointment of the Presenting Officer in the facts of the present case strikes at the root of fairness. He also relied on another judgment dated July 2, 2018 by Supreme Court in paragraph 35 of the Union of India & Ors. vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma reported in AIR (2018) SC 4860, wherein it was noted that the Departmental Proceeding was conducted in absence of the Presenting Officer may not be sustainable in the eyes of law, and therefore, it had set aside the report of the Enquiry Authority, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The Court's decision of September 2018 had relied on it as well. In the case of Director General, C.R.P.F., New Delhi & Ors vs. Sudhanshu Sekhar Deo, it was noted that the order of dismissal dated December 31, 2009 was set aside by the Justice Rakesh Kumar, the Single Judge under order dated July 25, 2013 passed in Sudhanshu Shekhar Deo vs The Union of India & Ors. (2013) in CWJC No 7962 of 2011. It recorded: "Till date of passing of the order of dismissal, the petitioner was allowed to discharge his duties and paid salary since he had not been placed under suspension in the said period. However, even though the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held the order of dismissal to be bad, the respondent authorities, showing total disregard to the order of this Court passed by the learned Single Judge, for no justifiable reasons whatsoever, have deprived the petitioner of his right to discharge duties, and fruits of his litigation arising out of the order dated 25.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge." It added:"In such circumstances, this Court would consider it appropriate that the respondents may not be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. The records of this appeal reveal that no efforts were made by the respondent authorities to obtain stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In fact, the respondent authorities themselves have sat on the order of the learned Single Judge, so as to deprive the petitioner..." 

Justice Madhuresh Prasad who authored the judgement concluded:"14 This Court would, thus, have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner would be entitled to all his consequential benefits as a result of the order of the Writ Court dated 25.07.2013. It is expected that the respondent authorities would ensure that the order of the Writ Court is complied with within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 15 The writ petitioner/respondent would be entitled to his consequential benefits including full back wages as a result of the order of the Writ Court dated 25.07.2013. 16 The Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed."