The State of Bihar v. Manoj Kumar
Court: Patna High Court
Bench: MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI,MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
Patna High Court judgment dated 2025-12-16. The State of Bihar v. Manoj Kumar. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No. 685 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7162 of 2016 ====================================================== 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department,Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ... ... Appellant/s Versus Manoj Kumar Son of Late Braj Nandan Prasad, Resident of B-103, People Co-operative Colony, Kankarbagh, P. S. Kankarbagh, District-Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Md. Nadim Seraj, GP-5 Mr. Ali M. Ahmad, Advocate Md. Shahbaj Alam, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Advocate Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR.
ANSHUMAN C. A. V. JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN) Date : 16-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and the respondent. 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the oral judgment dated 28. 03. 2024, as modified by the oral order dated 16. 04. 2024, passed in CWJC No. 7162 of 2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner–respondent Patna High Court L. P. A No. 685 of 2024 dt. 16-12-2025 2/15 herein has been allowed by quashing the order of punishment dated 22. 10. 2014 contained in Memo No. 1557, as well as the order dated 10. 08. 2015 issued by the Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, contained in Notification No. 1772. The learned Single Judge has further directed the respondent authorities to issue all consequential orders in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of the said order. 3.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 18 of the judgment is as follows: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears from the perusal of the second show-cause notice that the disciplinary authority has not followed Rule 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, in its true letter and spirit, while differing with the finding of the enquiry officer, and it further appears from the second show-cause notice that the disciplinary authority has framed a new charge against the petitioner relating to the land in question, which was initially not the subject matter of the memo of charge. ” 3. 1 Learned counsel for the appellant-State categorically submits that the aforesaid finding of the learned Single Judge is perverse and not in accordance with law. He further submits that under Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 Patna High Court L. P. A No.
685 of 2024 dt. 16-12-2025 3/15 (hereinafter referred to as the “CCA Rules, 2005”), it is well within the power of the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer on any article of charge. It is also within the authority’s power to record reasons for such disagreement and to record its own findings on the charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient. He further submits that under Rule 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005, the disciplinary authority is required to forward a copy of the inquiry report, along with its own findings, if any, as provided under sub-rule (2), to the government servant, who may submit his or her written representation within fifteen days. 3. 2 Learned counsel further submits that the second show-cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority after disagreeing with the enquiry report, which is evident from Annexure-7, letter dated 20. 01.
2014, through which the disagreement memo, in compliance with Rule 18(2) and 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005, was forwarded to the delinquent employee. 3. 3 Learned counsel for the appellant – State further submits that appellant has followed the principle of natural justice as well as the provision of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The writ petitioner was granted reasonable opportunity to place his Patna High Court L. P. A No. 685 of 2024 dt. 16-12-2025 4/15 defense and after considering the defense placed by him the disciplinary authority awarded punishment to the writ petitioner. However, the learned Single Judge has erroneously held that the said letter was issued in gross violation of Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 2005. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits at the outset that the learned Single Judge exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review by reappreciating the evidence as if sitting in appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authority.
In Support of his contention, he refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 610 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, shall not act as a second court of first appeal and cannot embark upon a re-evaluation of the evidence led before the enquiry officer. 4. 1 Paragraphs 12 and 13 of P. Gunasekaran lay down that the High Court, in judicial review of disciplinary proceedings, cannot reappreciate evidence, examine adequacy or reliability of the evidence, or correct findings of fact, so long as the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority, in Patna High Court L. P. A No. 685 of 2024 dt. 16-12-2025 5/15 accordance with prescribed procedure, without violation of natural justice and based on some legal evidence. The aforesaid paragraph no. 12 and 13 are as hereunder :- “12.
Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence.
The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. ” 13.
Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. Patna High Court L. P. A No. 685 of 2024 dt. 16-12-2025 6/15 5. Learned counsel next refers to the judgement in State of Rajasthan and Ors Vs.
Heem Singh reported in (2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases 569, wherein in paragraph 37 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters by drawing attention to the two ends of the spectrum: judicial restraint on the one hand, and permissible interference in cases of perversity or findings based on no evidence on the other. 5. 1 The judgement rendered in Heem Sing (supra) explains that while deference must be shown to the findings of the disciplinary authority, the Court may interfere where findings suffer from perversity, are unsupported by evidence, or vital evidence has been ignored. The standard of proof in disciplinary matters is the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court must avoid substituting its own view for that of the disciplinary authority. Paragraph 37 of the aforesaid judgement reads as under :- 37.
In exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters, there are two ends of the spectrum. The first embodies a rule of restraint. The second defines when interference is permissible. The rule of restraint constricts the ambit of judicial review. This is for a valid reason. The determination of whether a misconduct has been committed lies primarily within the domain of the disciplinary authority. The Judge does not assume the mantle of the disciplinary authority. Nor does the Judge wear the hat of an employer. Deference to a finding of fact Patna High Court L. P. A No. 685 of 2024 dt. 16-12-2025 7/15 by the disciplinary authority is a recognition of the idea that it is the employer who is responsible for the efficient conduct of their service. Disciplinary enquiries have to abide by the rules of natural justice. But they are not governed by strict rules of evidence which apply to judicial proceedings.
The standard of proof is hence not the strict standard which governs a criminal trial, of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but a civil standard governed by a preponderance of probabilities. Within the rule of preponderance, there are varying approaches based on context and subject. The first end of the spectrum is founded on deference and autonomy — deference to the position of the disciplinary authority as a fact-finding authority and autonomy of the employer in maintaining discipline and efficiency of the service. At the other end of the spectrum is the principle that the court has the jurisdiction to interfere when the findings in the enquiry are based on no evidence or when they suffer from perversity. A failure to consider vital evidence is an incident of what the law regards as a perverse determination of fact. Proportionality is an entrenched feature of our jurisprudence.
Service jurisprudence has recognised it for long years in allowing for the authority of the court to interfere when the finding or the penalty are disproportionate to the weight of the evidence or misconduct. Judicial craft lies in maintaining a steady sail between the banks of these two shores which have been termed as the two ends of the spectrum. Judges do not rest with a mere recitation of the hands-off mantra when they exercise judicial review. To determine whether the finding in a disciplinary enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or threshold level of scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support the charge of misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does not allow the court to reappreciate evidentiary findings in a disciplinary enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the Judge to be more appropriate. To do so would offend the first principle which has been outlined above.
The ultimate guide is the exercise of robust common sense without which the Judges' craft is in vain. ” 6. Learned counsel further places reliance on Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Dubey reported in (2021) 14 Supreme Court Cases 735, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph Patna High Court L. P. A No. 685 of 2024 dt. 16-12-2025 8/15 no. 21. 1 reiterated that the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, must not act as an appellate authority and cannot reassess the evidence considered by the enquiry officer. 6. 1 Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirms that in disciplinary matters, the High Court cannot reassess or re-evaluate evidence and may interfere only on limited grounds relating to procedural irregularity, violation of natural justice, or findings unsupported by any evidence. Relevant paragraph 21. 1 reads as under :- 21. 1.
We will first discuss the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction with respect to disciplinary proceedings. It is well settled that the High Court must not act as an appellate authority, and reappreciate the evidence led before the enquiry officer. We will advert to some of the decisions of this Court with respect to interference by the High Courts with findings in a departmental enquiry against a public servant. ” 7. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant – State submits that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge require interference and the judgment dated 28. 03. 2024, as modified by the oral order dated 16. 04. 2024 passed in CWJC No. 7162 of 2016, deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge in the present appeal, is fully in Patna High Court L. P. A No. 685 of 2024 dt.
16-12-2025 9/15 accordance with law and does not warrant any interference. It is submitted that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that Rule 18(2) and 18(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005 clearly mandate that, in the event the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiry authority on any article of charge, the disciplinary authority must record its reasons for such disagreement as well as its own findings on the said charge. 8. 1 Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the essential requirement under Rule 18(2) of the CCA Rules, 2005 is that the disagreement memo must relate strictly to the charges as framed in the original charge memo, and it cannot introduce any new or unrelated allegations. However, in the present case, upon perusal of the letter dated 20. 01.
2014 (disagreement memo) as well as the second show cause notice clearly reveals that new allegations were introduced, which amounts to a gross violation of Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 2005. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge rightly interfered with the findings of the disciplinary authority and consequently set aside both the order of punishment and the review order. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. Patna High Court L. P. A No. 685 of 2024 dt. 16-12-2025 10/15 9. With a view to decide the said issue that whether finding of learned single Judge as mentioned in para 18 of the judgement quoted above, it is necessary to brought on record three aspects of the matter on record. 9. 1 Firstly, the provision of CCA Rules, 2005 laid down i. e.
Rule 18(2)(3) as under :- “(2) The disciplinary authority, after receipt of the enquiry report as per rule 17 (23) (ii) or as per sub-rule (t), shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the evidences on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the inquiry report, together with its own findings, if any, as provided in sub-rule (2), to the government servant who may submit, if he or she so desires, his or her written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days. ” 9. 2 Secondly, the charge alleged at page 23 to the writ petition is as under :- पररिशशिष- "क" (शनियम 17 (3) तथथा शविशनियम 3 षव्यदृ ) प्रपत - "क" 1. सरिकथारिरी ससेविक कथा निथाम: शरी मनिनोज कक मथारि (आई 0 डरी0-2411) 2.
पदनिथाम : कथायरपथालक अशभियन्तथा सम्प्रशत शनिललंशबित Patna High Court L. P. A No. 685 of 2024 dt. 16-12-2025 11/15 3. शसेणरी : – 4. विसेतनि बिबड / गसेड-पसे : -- गसेड पसे०-- 5. जन्म शतथथ : 07. 01. 1955 6. ससेविथाशनिविवृथत्ति ककी शतथथ : 31. 01. 2015 7. आरिनोप विरर : -- आरिनोप पकनिपकनि बिथाढ़ सकरिकथा प्र मण्डल , करिशबिगशहियथा, पटनिथा कसे अन्तग र त जल सलंसथाधनि शविभिथाग ककी बिहिहममूल्य सरिकथारिरी जमरीनि कथा फजर्जी दस्तथाविसेज ततैयथारि करि जमरीनि कनो अशतक्रशमत करितसे हि ह ए उस परि बिहिहमलंथजलरी इमथारित (अपथाटरममट) शनिमथारण ककी कथारिरविथाई ककी जथा रिहिरी हितै। आरिनोप सलं0-1- जथालसथाजजों कसे दथारिथा बिहि ह मलंथजलरी भिविनि बिनिथानिसे हिसेतक आपससे शदनिथालंक 10. 01.
11 कनो मथालंगरी गई अनिकमशत कनो अमथान्य करिनिसे ककी विररित कथारि र विथाई करिनिसे ककी आविश्यकतथा थरी परिन्तक जथानि बिकझ करि आपकसेत् दथारिथा ऐसथा निहिहीं शकयथा गयथा , थजसकसे थलए आप दनोररी हितै। आरिनोप सलं0-2- आविरि अनिकमलंडल पदथाथधकथारिरी, निनौबितपकरि कसे दथारिथा अनिकमशत निहिहीं दसेगसे हिसेतक भिसेजसे गयसे प्र शतविसेदनि परि आपकसे दथारिथा अविरि अनिकमलंडल पदथाथधकथारिरी कनो पत दसेनिथा शक ऐसथा प्र शतविसेदनि भिसेजनिथा सहिरी कथाय र निहिहीं हितै , यहि आपकसे दथारिथा अविरि अनिकमलंडल पदथाथधकथारिरी कनो धमकथानिसे ककी कथारिरविथाई हितै। इस प्रकथारि आपकथा इस जथालसथाजरी म म सशक्रय सहिभिथाशगतथा एविलं जथालसथाजरी कनो शिहि दसेनिथा स् पष रू प ससे प्र मथाशणत हिनोतथा हितै , थजसकसे थलए आप दनोररी हितै। अनिक0- 1. प्रसे स कतरिण ककी प्र शत । 2. लरीज ककी प्र शत। 3. शविथध पदथाथधकथारिरी दथारिथा समशपरत प्र शतविसेदनि ककी प्र शत। 4. जथालसथाजनो दथारिथा मथालंग ककी गयरी अनिथापशत प्रमथाण पत ससे सलंबिलंथधत पत ककी छथायथा प्र शत। 5. अविरि प्र म० पदथा० कथा पतथालंक 34 शद0-24. 01. 11 एविलं कथायर 0 अशभि0 कथा पतथालंक 251 शद0-03. 02.
11 ककी छथायथा प्र शत ( श् यथाम क क मथारि थसलंहि ) सरिकथारि कसे शविशिसेर सशचिवि। 9. 3 Thirdly, the contents of the second show cause cum disagreement at page 53 and 54 is as follows :- Patna High Court L. P. A No. 685 of 2024 dt. 16-12-2025 12/15 i=kad & 22@fu0 fl0 ¼iV0½ &03&12@2012@------- fcgkj ljdkj ty lalk/ku foHkkx izs’kd] “;ke dqekj flag ljdkj ds fo”ks’k lfpoA lsok esa] Jh eukst dqekj] rRdkyhu dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] lksu ugj ize. My] [kxkSy] eq[;ky; &eq[; vfHk;ark dk dk;kZy;] ty lalk/ku foHkkx] iVukA iVuk] fnukad & 20-01-2014 fo’k; %&f}rh; dkj. k i`PNk ds laca/k esaA egk”k;] funs”kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo’k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd vki tc ¼ekpZ 2010 ls vDVwcj 2012 rd½ dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark lksu ugj ize. My] [kxkSy esa inLFkkfir Fks rc vkids fo:) ty lalk/ku foHkkx dh cgqewY; ljdkjh tehu ij cgqeaftyh Hkou cukus gsrq vkids ekWxh xbZ vuqefr dks vekU; djus dh Rofjr dkjokbZ ugha djus ,oa voj ize. My inkf/kdkjh] ukScriqj }kjk vuqefr ugha nsus ds izfronsu ij vkids }kjk vuqe.
My inkf/kdkjh dks /kedkus ds izFke n`’V;k izekf. kr vkjksiksa ds fy, foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la[;k 1102 fnukad 10-10-2012 }kjk fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj. k fu;a=. k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh 2005 ds fu;e 17 fd rgr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh x;hA lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ls izkIr tkWp izfrosnu dh leh{kk ljdkj ds Lrj ij dh x;hA leh{kk esa ik;k x;k fd lapkyu inkf/kdkjh }kjk eUrO; fn;k x;k fd mDr of. kZr tkylkth ,oa /kks[kk/kM+h dk ekeyk izdk”k esa vkus ds i”pkr tkylkth ds fo:) vki ;Fkksfpr dkjokbZ djus esa lQy ugha jgsA foHkkxh; leh{kk es ik;k x;k fd vki lksu ugj ize. My] [kxkSy esa ekpZ 2010 ls vDVwcj 2012 rd jgs gSaA ml vof/k esa ;g vfrdzfer Hkwfe vkids v/khu FkkA mDr Hkwfe ij tkylkth ,oa /kks[kk/kM+h dj fuekZ. k dk;Z djk;s tkus dks dk;Zokgh vkids inLFkkiu vof/k esa gqbZA bl nkSjku mDr ljdkjh tehu dh jlhn dVrk x;k] ftlesa foHkkxh; inkf/kdkjh ds lkFk&lkFk vapyh; inkf/kdkjh Hkh lafyIr jgsA voj vuqe. My inkf/kdkjh] ukScriqj ds }kjk vuqefr ugha nsus gsrq Hksts x;s i= ij vkids }kjk voj ize.
My inkf/kdkjh dks i= nsuk fd ,slk izfrosnu Hkstuk lgh dk;Z ugha gS] ;g d`R; vkids }kjk voj ize. My inkf/kdkjh dks /kedkus dh dkjokbZ gSA bl izdkj vkids fo:) tkylkth esa lfdz; lgHkkfxrk ,oa tkylkth dks “kg nsuk Li’V :i ls izekf. kr gSA leh{kk esa ;g Hkh ik;k x;k fd vkids }kjk inLFkkiu dky esa vfrdzfer Hkwfe dh orZeku Lo:i D;k gS] yht lgh gS ;k xyr gS] bl tkylkth esa fdldh lafyIrrk gS bldh Hkh u rks tkudkjh ysus dh iz;kl fd;k x;k vkSj ugha oLrq fLFkr dk lR;kiu gh fd;k x;kA ;gkW rd fd vkids }kjk iz”kklfud gLr{ksi ds fy, dkjZokbZ ugha dj voj ize. My inkf/kdkjh }kjk vukifRr izek. k i= fuxZr ugha djus dh vuq”kalk dks Hkh utj vankt dj fn;k x;kA tks vkids voS/k dk;Z esa iw. kZ lgHkkfxrk dks iq’V djrk gSA mDRk ds vfrfjDr ;g Hkh ik;k x;k fd mDr vof/k esa mDr vodzfer Hkwfe vkids ize.
Myk/khu jgrs gq, Hkh vkids }kjk u rks yht dh lR;rk dh tkWph xbZ vkSj u gh bl yht ds fo:) dkVs x;s jlhn dks dS”k cqd esa ntZ dh xbZA mDr jkf”k ds laca/k eas Hkh fdlh izdkj ds Nku&chu dk iz;kl ugha fd;k x;k] cfYd vius LokFkZ dh iwfrZ ds fy, ,oa ljdkjh lEifRr dks {kfr igqpks ds fu;r ls vukifRr izek. k i= dh ekWx ij Hkh “kh? kzrk ls tkWp iM+rky djus dh dkjZokbZ ds ctk; vius vf/kuLFk inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks bl ekeys esa gLr{ksi ugha djus ds fy, vU;Fkk iz;kl fd;k x;k tks vkids dqfRlr ea”kk dk |ksrd gSA vkids fo:) nksuksa vkjksi izekf. kr gksrs gSaA leh{kksijkUr lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds eUrO; ls vlgefr trkrs gq, mDr vkjksi dks izekf. kr ik;k x;kA mDr izekf. kr vkjksi ds fy, fuEukafdr Patna High Court L. P. A No. 685 of 2024 dt. 16-12-2025 13/15 vlgefr ds fcUnq ij f}rh; dkj. k i`PNk djus dk fu. kZ; fy;k x;k%& mDRk of. kZr rF;ksa ls Li’V gS fd vkids }kjk foHkkxh; Hkw[k. M dk voS/k :i ls nkf[ky [kkjht djkus gsrq vius v/khuLFkksa ij ncko fn;k x;kA vr,o cgqewY; foHkkxh; Hkw[k.
M dk foHkkx ls csn[ky djkus esa vkidh vge Hkwfedk jghA mDr of. kZr fLFkfr esa lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ls izkIr tkWp izfrosnu dh Nk;k izfr layXu djrs gq, vuqjks/k gS fd i= izkfIr ds 15 ¼iUnzg½ fnukas ds vUnj f}rh; dkj. k i`PNk dk tckc lefiZr djus dh d`ik djsaA vxj fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa vkidk tckc vizkIr jgrk gS rks le>k tk,xk fd bl laca/k esa vkidks dqN ugha dguk gS ,slh fLFkfr esa foHkkx ,d i{kh; fu. kZ; ysus ds fy, Lora= gksxkA vuq0&tkWp izfrosnu dh Nk;k izfrA fo”oklHkktu g@&vLi’V 17-01-14 ¼”;ke dqekj flag½ ljdkj ds fo”ks’k lfpo 17-01-14 10. From the records of the case, it transpires that in the enquiry report, the Chief Engineer-cum-Enquiry Officer has arrived at the finding that the allegations made in the charge memo are not proved against the writ petitioner–respondent herein. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has further placed before this Court the office order issued from the office of the Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Khagaul, Patna, which is available at page no.
102 of the record and reads as follows dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark dk dk;kZy; lksu ugj ize. My] [kxkSy] iVuk i=kad%& [kxkSy] fnukad%& &% dk;kZy;&vkns”k%& eks0 “kdhy [kkW o vU; dk vkosnu fnukad 07-01-2011 vuqyXud lfgr }kjk IykWV ua0& 118 ¼orZeku ,e0 ,0 IykWV&588 ,oa 589½ ij iDdk lajpuk fuekZ. k gsrq vukifRr izek. k i= dh ekWx dh x;hA ijUrq muds }kjk lefiZr dkxtkr QthZ o /kks[kk /kM+h dh fu;r ls rS;kj fd;k x;k ik;k x;kA mYys[kuh; gS fd bl izdkj dks dksbZ yht bl Patna High Court L. P. A No. 685 of 2024 dt. 16-12-2025 14/15 dk;kZy; ls fuxZr ugha gS A mDr ds laca/k esa bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 1747 fnukad 30-08-2012 }kjk yht dh ewy izfr miyC/k djkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA ftlds fo:) esa Jh [kkW }kjk vkosnu fnuakd 08-09- 2012 ls iqu% iwoZ dh rjg gh QthZ dkxtkr miyC/k djk;k ik;k x;kA ftlds lanHkZ esa iqu% muls f}rh; i`PNk bl dk;kZy; ls i=kad 1876 fnukad 12-09-2012 }kjk dh x;h rFkk ewy yht dh Nk;k izfr fdlh jktif=r inkf/kdkjh }kjk lR;kfir@vfHkizekf.
kr izfr miyC/k djkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k] ijUrq le; lhek lekfIr ds mijkUr Hkh vkt rd muds }kjk ;kfpr yht dh izfr miyC/k ugha djk;k x;kA blls Li’V gS fd Jh [kkW }kjk tkucw> dj /kks[k dh fu;r ls QthZ dkxt rS;kj dj blds vk/kkj ij of. kZr Hkwfe dk jsUV jlhn voj ize. My&inkf/kdkjh] lksu ugj voj ize. My] ukScriqj ls djk;k x;kA Jh [kkW ds vkosnu dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gS rFkk QthZ dkxtkrksa ,oa tkylkth ds vk/kkj ij ljdkjh Hkwfe vfrdze. k djus dk nks’kh ikrs gq, Jh [kkW ds fo:) lacaf/kr Fkkuk esa rqjUr izkFkfedh ntZ djus dk vkns”k voj ize. My inkf/kdkjh] lksu ugj voj ize. My] ukScriqj dks fn;k x;k gSA lkFk gh fcuk v/kksgLrk{kjh dh vuqefr izkIr fd;s fcuk vf/kd`r yht dk vfHkys[k ¼dk;kZy; esa miyC/k ugha½ ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 03-01-11 dks jsUV jlhn dkVk x;k rks mlh fuxZr dh frfFk ls jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA g@& dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark lksu ugj ize. My] [kxkSy] iVuk 12. A bare perusal of the said office orders makes it evident that Allegation No. 1 is not correct.
It further transpires that whatever was alleged in the charge memo has simply been repeated and advanced in the disagreement memo. In light of the office order dated 04. 10. 2012 contained in Letter No. 2064 issued from the office of the Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Khagaul, it is clear that the disagreement memo is unsustainable in law. The charges levelled in the charge memo have been reiterated in the disagreement memo, which is impermissible in law. Patna High Court L. P. A No. 685 of 2024 dt. 16-12-2025 15/15 13. Moreover, Rule 18(2) of the CCA Rules, 2005 mandates that any finding must be confined to the charges as framed in the charge memo and cannot be based on charges differently advanced in the disagreement memo. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the disciplinary authority acted illegally and issued the second show-cause notice in gross violation of Rule 18(2). 14.
Accordingly, we conclude that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 18 of the impugned order are fully in accordance with law and warrant no interference. 15. In result, the LPA stands dismissed. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Bibek Chaudhuri, J : I agree. ( Bibek Chaudhuri, J) Ashwini/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 08. 12. 2025 Uploading Date 16. 12. 2025 Transmission Date
Source: Patna High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.