Patna High Court - Orders
Kahkashan vs The State Of Bihar on 18 April, 2026
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.397 of 2025
======================================================
Kahkashan Daughter of Mohammad Masoom Azam Karim Resident of Flate
no. A1 K.G.N. Tower Indirapuri Samanpura, P.S.- Shastri Nagar District-
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth Department, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Joint Secretary-Cum-Director, Cultural Affairs, Art Culture and Youth
Department, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Deputy Secretary, Art. Culture and Youth Department, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Prince Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Navneet Kumar, AC to GP18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 18-04-2026Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned Senior counsel with Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
(a) For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing Resolution contained in Memo. No. 14781 dated 17.09.2024 issued by Additional Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna, (for short referred as "Impugned Order") whereby and whereunder, petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of Censure (for the year 2024-25) under Rule-14 of Bihar Government Servant (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, (hereinafter referred "C.C.A. Rules") on totally Patna High Court CWJC No.397 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2026 2/10 flimsy grounds and based upon no evidence as such same deserves to be set aside.
(b) For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing Resolution contained in Memo. No. 18592 dated 20.11.2024 issued by Additional Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder, review preferred petitioner has been dismissed without considering any of points raised, in totally cryptic and mechanical manner.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a member of Bihar Administrative Service having been selected through BPSC and presently working as Officer on Special Duty in Department of Art, Culture and Youth, Bihar Patna. He further submits that vide letter No.541 dated 06.06.2024, petitioner was directed to conduct an inspection of Kala Bhawan situated in district of Purnia and submit a report by 15.06.2024 as the said report was to be submitted to Government Assurance Committee of Bihar Legislative Council. He further submits that the petitioner vide letter No.178, dated 07.06.2024 requested for providing certain documents and records relating to 'Kala Bhawan' Purnia to enable the inspection team to carry out physical inspection. Since it was the summer days, a number of member of team has to visit therefore by the said letter, the petitioner has also Patna High Court CWJC No.397 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2026 3/10 requested to Directorate for providing one Tata Safari or Innova Crysta vehicle for inspection of Kala Bhawan and submitting its report. Further request was also made to provide one room at District Guest House, Purnia for fooding and lodging as per Government norms. Further the petitioner had requested for providing a clerk relating to Culture Directorate and a bodyguard from Bihar Police for help.
4. Senior counsel further submits that the Deputy Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth Department after going through the said letter issued a show-cause as well as charge- memo vide Memo No.763 dated 11.06.2024 alleging that the petitioner is a officer of Bihar Administrative Service posted at the headquarters, and therefore, she is not entitled for Government vehicle and as per rules, she is entitled for paid travel allowance only. It has also been intimated that she is not entitled for security guard for discharging her duties and demanding a clerk for the said work shows her incompetence. It has also been alleged that demanding such facilities is basically a sign of disobeying the orders of higher officials and negligence towards work, dereliction of duty, indiscipline and disobedient conduct.
5. Senior counsel further submits that the direction Patna High Court CWJC No.397 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2026 4/10 was also made to submit a show-cause within one week that as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against her. In response thereof, petitioner has submitted her reply on 19.06.2024, but prior to that she had gone for inspection and submitted a report also. He further submits that in the reply, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation, but vide letter No.11569 dated 24.07.2024, the Additional Secretary, General Administrative Department had recommended for framing of charge-memo and initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner and directed to file reply to the memo of charge within 15 days of the allegation levelled against her. The reply has been filed by the petitioner on 05.08.2024 and in continuation thereof, Memo No.14781 dated 17.09.2024 has been issued by the Additional Secretary to General Administration Department by which the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of Censure. He further submits that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said punishment order, the petitioner has preferred a review application under Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and submitted his review application on 23.10.2024 to the Addl. Secretary, General Administration Department for setting aside the order of punishment imposed upon her. In review petition, a categorical request has also been Patna High Court CWJC No.397 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2026 5/10 made for personal hearing, but without considering any of the points raised in the review petition, the same was dismissed and the original order vide memo No.14781 dated 17.09.2024 has been affirmed.
6. Senior counsel further submits that in the light of the direction for inspection, the petitioner had visited the place and submitted the inspection report well within time. He further submits that the order passed in the departmental proceeding has to be passed completely in accordance with the procedure laid down under Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. He further submits that admittedly, the order of punishment is minor in nature and for the purpose of passing order on minor punishment, the procedure laid down under Rule 19 of the Bihar CCA, Rules, 2005 in which recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior has to be made. He further submits that in the original order, there is absolutely non-consideration of the points mentioned and also recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour is not there.
7. Senior counsel further submits that the order has been passed in gross violation of Rule 19(1)(d) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and therefore, the said final order is bad in law and in gross violation of the said rule. He further submits Patna High Court CWJC No.397 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2026 6/10 that the order of review is also cryptic in the sense that whatever be the points specific raised in the review petition, has not been considered and separate finding has been given. He further submits that the finding which has to be given in the original order, has been inserted in the review order. By the review order, the test for original order has not been made rather the deficiency come in the original order has been tried to be corrected, which is not permissible in law.
8. Senior counsel further relied on the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in case of Jagat Lal Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. passed in CWJC No.8237 of 2016 dated 22.04.2025 and submits that this Court in the similarly situated circumstances, has categorically decided this matter and finds that if in punishment order, neither any proposal to take action nor reasonings/recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour is present then, the said order is bad in law and not according to procedure laid down under CCA Rules.
9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that in the counter-affidavit, the specific stand has been taken that the orders and departmental proceeding have been conducted completely in accordance with law. He further Patna High Court CWJC No.397 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2026 7/10 submits that Annexure-R/A is a letter issued by the Additional Chief Secretary where analysis of the allegation, her show-cause reply and findings were separately recorded.
10. Counsel further submits that in the said letter, where analysis has been made and recording a finding on each imputation has been made separately, and therefore, the points raised by learned Senior counsel that the finding has not been made, is not correct. Therefore, on factual matrix, the writ petition may be dismissed.
11. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the order (Annexure-P/8) contained in Memo No.14781 dated 17.09.2024, this Court finds that the reasonings of the reply inserted by the petitioner, have not been discussed in the order sheet nor recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, which has been entered in the charge memo, has been discussed in the said order. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the original order is bad in law.
12. So far as the point on review order is concerned, again the points which was raised by the petitioner in the review petition, has not been discussed in the order sheet rather the deficiency which has come in the original order, has been tried to be fulfilled which this Court shall not permit to improve the Patna High Court CWJC No.397 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2026 8/10 order in review as the scope of review is always limited. So far as the ratio of judgment on which petitioner relied in case of Jagat Lal (Supra) whose relevant paragraph Nos.5, 6 & 7 states as follows:-
"5. After hearing the arguments of Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State, it transpires to this Court that the order impugned is basically a minor punishment and for minor punishment, the procedure prescribed under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, 2005 is very much relevant which states as follows:-
"19. Procedure for imposing minor penalties-
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-
rule (3) of Rule 18, no order imposing on a Government Servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 14 shall be made except after-
(a) informing the Government Servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 17, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;
(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government Servant under clause (a) and the record of Patna High Court CWJC No.397 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2026 9/10 inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration;
(d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and
(e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. (2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include-
(i) a copy of the intimation to the Government Servant of the proposal to take action against him;
(ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him;
(iii) his representation if any;
(iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry;
(v) the advice of the Commission, if any;
(vi) the findings of each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and
(vii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor."
6. It transpires to this Court from the said Letter that there is neither any proposal to take action against him of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken nor in the final order, finding on imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour has come. There are absolute lacking of the ingredients of procedure for imposing minor penalty in the opinion of this Court and it is due to this reason, order dated 14.11.2012 contained in Memo No.5821 (annexed as Annexure-7) as well as Letter No.5551 dated 03.11.2012 (annexed as Annexure-
6) are hereby set aside.
7. As per the submission made by Patna High Court CWJC No.397 of 2025(3) dt.18-04-2026 10/10 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already retired on 31.01.2015, therefore, the Deputy Secretary Registration Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (Respondent no.3) is hereby directed to correct the salary and other pensionary benefits of the petitioner as well as his arrears is also directed to be calculated and the Respondent no.3 shall assure the payment after making calculation as if there was no punishment imposed to the petitioner during his service career within 3 months from the date of production of this order before him.
13. After going through the judgment and position of law, this Court is of the firm view that the order suffers procedural lacuna laid down under Rule 19 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and therefore, the original order contained in Memo No.14781 dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure-P/8) issued by Addl. Secretary to Government, General Administration Department as well as the review order contained in Memo No.18592 dated 20.11.2024 are hereby set aside and the present writ petition is hereby allowed.
14. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the present writ application stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J) Prakashmani/-
U