Patna High Court
Suman Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Bihar Through The Collector on 24 March, 2026
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11755 of 2015
======================================================
Suman Kumar Sinha Son of Late Rajendra Prasad, Resident of Village +P.O. -
Kourihar, P.S. - Gamharia, District - Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Madhepura.
2. Mr. Abrar Mohammad Kamar, Madhepura.
3. Sri Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Land Reforms Deputy Collector, madhepura.
4. The Circle Officer, Ghailadh Circle Office, Madhepura Presenting Officer.
5. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.
6. The District Magistrate, Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : AAG 14
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 24.03.2026
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought inter alia following relief(s):
"(i) Charge-sheet dated 19.06.2014 issued
by the Collector, Madhepura against the petitioner
be set aside.
(ii) Departmental proceeding initiated vide
memo no.235-2 dated 30.07.2014 by Deputy
Collector Land Reforms Madhepura be directed to
be stopped during pendency of this writ petition.
(iii) Respondents authority be directed not
to take any coercive step against the petitioner."
3. The brief facts, of the case is that the petitioner was
appointed as a Revenue Clerk in the year 1986 and served at
Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026
2/20
various Circle Offices including Murliganj, Alam Nagar,
Singeshwar, Udakisunganj and Madhepura, and while he was
posted at Ghailad Circle Office since June 2012, for alleged
misappropriation of government funds an FIR bearing
Madhepura (Parmanpur O.P.) Case No. 401 of 2014 dated
19.07.2014was lodged by the Circle Officer, Ghailadh and simultaneously he was served with Memo No. 235-2 dated 30.07.2014 issued by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Madhepura, enclosing a charge memo contained in Prapatra 'K' dated 20.06.2014 issued by the District Magistrate, Madhepura. It has been alleged that the petitioner had committed irregularities in preparation of the list of landless Scheduled Caste (Mahadalit) beneficiaries and registration of land in their favour. The inquiry could not be held for a period of six years, which related to the year, 2013. The petitioner has denied his role to either allot the plots to the mahadalits or to sanction the money for registration of the land in favour of the beneficiries.
Argument on behalf of the petitioner
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that departmental proceeding was directed to be initiated against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Madhepura vide communication dated 20.06.2014. The Land Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 3/20 Reforms Deputy Collector (L.R.D.C), Madhepura was appointed the Conducting Officer and Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer) was appointed as the Presenting Officer. Inquiry could not be held over a period of more than six years. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 20.06.2014, denying all charges contained in Memo No.235-2 dated 30.07.2014 (Prapatra 'K') and demonstrated that the beneficiary list was prepared in the year 2008 by his predecessor and he had no role in identifying beneficiaries or making any requisition or report in respect of the disputed land, appertaining to Khata No. 2583, Khesra No. 7220 of revenue village Bhatrandha. The land was not registered in the name of Harijan people, as evident from Khatiyan obtained under the Right to Information Act. It is further contended that without proper verification or enquiry, the charges were framed, which are not supported by evidence, ignoring the petitioner's unblemished service record. He submitted that even prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet, an FIR being Madhepura (Parmanpur O.P.) Case No. 401 of 2014 dated 19.07.2014 was lodged by the Circle Officer, Ghailadh, in which the petitioner was not even named, rendering the impugned charge-sheet dated 30.07.2014, arbitrary and liable to Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 4/20 be set aside. The Petitioner for the same charges was served with the Prapatra 'K' for initiating departmental proceeding, vide memo no.461-2-Estm dated 20.06.2014. The DCLR, Sadar, Madhepura was appointed as the Conducting Officer and in compliance of direction contained in Memo No.461-2 dated 20.06.2014, the DCLR initiated disciplinary proceeding and the petitioner was noticed, vide memo no.235-2 dated 30.7.2014.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is presently posted as Revenue Karamchari and the disciplinary action taken against him relates to the year, 2013, which was proceeded based on the inquiry report submitted by the Additional Collector, Madhepura contained in Letter No.89/C dated 21.11.2013.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not assigned with the duty of sanctioning any money for any work to be done at the level of the Circle Office. The Circle Officer is the one who had been held guilty.
7. The District Magistrate subsequently dropped the departmental proceeding by order dated 26.02.2020 in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Dr.(Mrs.) Kalpana Sinha Vs. Union of India, reported in PLJR 2016 (Vol-2) page 197, which has no bearings on the facts of the Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 5/20 present case as the issue in the said case related to the service condition relating to the pay scale of Associate Professor. It is thus the District Magistrate cum Collector imposed the penalty of automatic reduction in pay and reduction in the post of the petitioner to basic grade category in most mechnical manner. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Magistrate, Madhepura, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa, who directed for reconsideration of the penalty order in respect of the charges framed against the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Madhepura issued letter No. 189 dated 17.03.2025 calling upon the petitioner to submit his show cause regarding the charges contained in Prapatra-K in the departmental proceeding. However, the authorities have not proceeded in accordance with the provision of Rule 17 of Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (CCA Rules) without any change having been proved to impose major penalty rendering the order passed by the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the point of penalty to be without authority of law and had remanded back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for holding a fresh disciplinary proceeding. Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 6/20
8. Learned counsel further submitted that it is well settled by the Apex Court that the protracted disciplinary proceeding is itself penal in nature and as such, the same requires interference of this Court as in the present case, the charges were framed way back in the year, 2014 for alleged irregularity in allotment of the land in the year, 2008. In above background, learned counsel submitted that if the disciplinary proceeding is allowed to be initiated afresh after delay of more than 16 years. The same will give room to bias, mala fide and misuse of power and is likely to cause prejudice to him.
Argument on behalf of the Respondent State
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that while the petitioner was posted as Revenue Karamchari in Ghailadh Anchal, he had submitted a report to the Anchal Adhikari recommending allotment of land to 33 Mahadalit families, treating them as landless persons, on the basis of which, 3-3 decimals of land each, totaling 99 decimals of land of Mauza Bhatrandha, Thana No. 33, Khata No. 2583, Khesra No. 7220, was purchased and allotted as homestead land. However, it subsequently came to light that the said beneficiaries were not landless, as they were already residing on homestead land and some of them had also received benefits Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 7/20 under the Indira Awas Scheme, and further the said land belonged to Hirday Yadav and the same was under dispute among his four sons. Upon a complaint filed by one Tarni Yadav before the Anchal Adhikari and the District Magistrate, Madhepura, the matter was examined and the Anchal Adhikari reported that the names of the 33 Mahadalit beneficiaries had been recommended by the Revenue Karamchari and Circle Inspector. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Madhepura vide letter No. 2455/G.O dated 22.10.2013 directed the Additional Collector, Madhepura to conduct an enquiry, who submitted report No. 893 dated 21.11.2013 pointing out several irregularities in the allotment process. Consequently, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by order No. 46 dated 20.06.2014 with the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Madhepura as Conducting Officer and the Anchal Adhikari as Presenting Officer. The District Magistrate subsequently stayed the departmental action by order dated 26.02.2020 in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in case of Dr.(Mrs.) Kalpana Sinha (Supra), the matter was later reconsidered pursuant to letter No. 342 dated 23.02.2022 issued by the Commissioner, Koshi Division, directing reconsideration of punishment in respect of the Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 8/20 charges framed against the petitioner, and accordingly the District Magistrate, Madhepura issued letter No. 189 dated 17.03.2025 calling upon the petitioner to submit his show cause regarding the charges contained in Prapatra-K in the departmental proceeding, which clearly shows that the authorities have acted strictly in accordance with law and principles of natural justice by providing the petitioner due opportunity to explain the allegations levelled against him. Learned Counsel submitted that the writ petition is premature and the same is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis and conclusion
10. Heard the Parties
11. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Revenue Clerk in the year, 1986. He was issued memo dated 30.07.2014 by the DCLR, Madhepura along with a charge sheet dated 19.06.2014 and in reply denying the charges, the petitioner submitted that a list of scheduled caste, which was prepared by the then Revenue Clerk in the Year, 2008, denying his role in the purchase or allotment of land to the landless persons, as such, the charge-sheet having been issued without application of mind and entire disciplinary proceeding initiated against him based on no evidence has no legal sanctity. Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 9/20
12. From the perusal of the records and the argument advanced by the parties, it is evident that the petitioner was posted as Revenue Kramchari in Ghailadh Anchal and his predecessor had submitted a report to the Anchal Adhikari, Ghailadh to allot lands to 33 Mahadalit family to rehabilitate for construction of their house and on the basis of the report. A total 33 Mahadalit family as who were landless and as per government scheme, 3-3 Dec. land of Mauza Bhatrandha, Thana No.33, Khata 2583, Khesra 7220, total area of 99 Dec. land after purchase was allotted to them as homestead land. It was reported that Mahadalit had got homestead land and they were living in their houses and among them some persons had got Indira Awas too. The said land i.e. Khesra No.7220 belong to Hirday Yadav and there was litigation among the four sons of Hirday Yadav.
13. The District Magistrate, Madhepura vide letter no.2455/GO dated 22.10.2013 had directed the Additional Collector, Madhepura for inquiry and the Additional Collector, Madhepura vide letter no.893 dated 21.11.2013 submitted having found the above irregularities that allottes were not landless persons. The departmental proceeding was directed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Madhepura Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 10/20 vide order contained in letter no.46 dated 20.06.2014. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Madhepura was the Conducting Officer and Anchal Adhikari as the Presenting Officer.
14. The District Magistrate even without submission of the inquiry report passed the order dated 26.02.2020 by dropping the proceeding in the light of the judgment passed in case of Dr.(Mrs.) Kalpana Sinha (supra), which is not applicable in the facts of the present case, at the same time, also imposed punishment of penalty, reduction in the rank and in the basic grade in complete violation of Rule 17 (3) of CCA Rules and Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
15. Aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate, the preferred Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, the District Magistrate against the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the District Magistrate, communicated vide Letter No.342/Legal dated 23.02.2022. The Divisional Commissioner in the said Appeal after an inordinate delay of almost three years issued notice, vide Letter No.189 dated 17.03.2025, to give opportunity to the petitioner and conclude the disciplinary proceeding.
16. It further appears from the records that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 11/20 year, 2013 for the alleged misconduct which took place in the year, 2008, whereas the order of punishment was passed in the year, 2020. Even thereafter, the matter remained pending for consideration without any meaningful progress and without holding of inquiry in accordance with with the Rule 17 of CCA Rules, 2005. Such prolonged delay in not concluding disciplinary proceedings is contrary to the settled principles of service jurisprudence, which mandates that the departmental proceeding must be concluded within a reasonable time so as to avoid undue prejudice to the delinquent employee.
17. The Apex Court, as well as, this Court have time and again held that for initiation of disciplinary action against a Government servant over the misconduct committed by him/her, it is the bounden duty of every authority to follow the procedures as contemplated under the provisions of the CCA Rules, to initiate proceedings in a reasonable time. Admittedly, in the present case, the charge memo was issued on 30.07.2014 and the order of penalty passed in the year, 2022 and same has been interfered by the Divisional Commissioner and the disciplinary proceeding is still pending, causing mental agony and sufferings all along to the petitioner. If the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the law laid down in the case Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 12/20 of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. Md. T.N. Housing Board, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 636 is applied to the case in hand, then no other conclusion is arrived than holding the delay caused by the disciplinary authority to be allowed to stand, the same will be miscarriage of justice.
18. The Apex Court while dealing with the situation like present in the case of Allahabad Bank Vs. Krishna Narayan Tiwari reported in (2017) 2 SCC 308 wherein the Apex Court in Para 8 has held inter alia as under :
"8. There is no quarrel with the proposition that in cases where the High Court finds the enquiry to be deficient, either procedurally or otherwise, the proper course always is to remand the matter back to the authority concerned to redo the same afresh. That course could have been followed even in the present case. The matter could be remanded back to the disciplinary authority or to the enquiry officer for a proper enquiry and a fresh report and order. But that course may not have been the only course open in a given situation. There may be situations where because of a long time-lag or such other supervening circumstances the writ court considers it unfair, harsh or otherwise unnecessary to direct a fresh enquiry or fresh order by the competent authority. That is precisely what the High Court has done in the case at hand."
(Emphasis supplied).
19. In case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"9.Now remains the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and a half years in serving the charges. The question is whether the said delay warranted the quashing of charges in this case. It is trite to say that such disciplinary proceeding must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 13/20 They cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the court may well interfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. In other words, the court has to indulge in a process of balancing... "
(Emphasis supplied)
20. The inordinate and unexplained delay vitiates the impugned charge memo and the same is liable to be quashed as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above cases. The disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated after a lapse of considerable time, it would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the Court may well interfere and quash the charges. Here, in the present case, the petitioner has raised a plea that the delay is likely to cause prejudice to him in defending himself. If such plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 14/20
21. In case of S.Sekar Vs. Commissioner of Social Welfare, Ezhilagam, Chennai reported in 2010 (1) MLJ 708, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 11 has observed inter alia as follows:
"11.Also, it is a settled proposition that while considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules; but then, delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officers unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations". In the above reported case, there was a delay of 12 years in concluding the disciplinary proceedings and that there was no explanation for such delay.
22. The District Magistrate even without considering the fact that in inquiry report, the petitioner has been exonerated of all the charges had passed the order dated 26.02.2020 by dropping the proceeding and at the same time, also imposed punishment of penalty reduction in the rank and in the basic grade in complete violation of Rule 17(3) of CCA Rules and Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
23. From the materials available on record, it is evident that the primary responsibility for the alleged irregularity in the execution of the lease deed and utilization of Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 15/20 government funds lay with the Circle Officers concerned, under whose authority the work was executed. The role attributed to the petitioner, who was serving as a Revenue Karamchari, was limited to submission of a report after physical verification of the site. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had any authority to sanction the amount in question or that he had acted in connivance with any other official for personal gain or to cause wrongful loss to the State exchequer.
24. Significantly, no material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the report submitted by the petitioner was manipulated, motivated, or influenced by any extraneous consideration. In absence of any specific allegation establishing deliberate misconduct or mala fide conduct on the part of the petitioner, continuation of the departmental proceeding after such prolonged delay would amount to causing undue harassment to the petitioner.
25. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is on the verge of superannuation and has already faced departmental proceedings for more than a decade and in this regard, I have already recorded that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that protracted disciplinary proceedings without reasonable justification are liable to be interfered with Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 16/20 by the Court, particularly when the delay is attributable to the employer and causes serious prejudice to the employee.
26. I find that the record reveals that for the similar allegation, an FIR dated 30.07.2014 bearing Madhepura (Parmanpur O.P.) PS Case No.401 of 2014 was also instituted against the petitioner and the said case has been closed by holding the petitioner not guilty. The law is well settled by a the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mohd. Yusuf Miyan and others, (1997) 2 SCC 699, wherein the Apex Court held that there is no bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. The above preposition of law was again considered in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and Anr, reported in, (1999) 3 SCC 679 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following five parameters to help to make a decision regarding the conduct of both proceedings, which are as follows:-
• "Departmental Proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
• If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on an identical and similar set of Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 17/20 facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. • Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of the offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during the investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. • The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
• If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings even if were stayed on account of pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest."
27. The legal position in this regard was further crystallized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, reported in, (1996) 6 SCC 417,and it was held that the approach and objective in the criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding are altogether distinct and different. On one hand, in the disciplinary proceeding, the question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct which may merit his dismissal or imposition of any other punishment as per service rules, as the case may be, but in the criminal proceeding, the question is whether an offence Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 18/20 attributed against the employee, if established, would warrant punishment under the criminal law.
28. From the perusal of the records it is evident that the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant on the very same set of allegations, evidence, and witnesses have culminated in discharge by the competent court. Where the departmental proceedings are founded on identical and verbatim facts and evidence, and no additional or independent material has been brought on record to distinguish the departmental case from the criminal prosecution, such acquittal assumes significant probative value. In these circumstances, it would be wholly unjust and legally untenable to sustain the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings. The appellant, therefore, is entitled to exoneration, and the impugned order of dismissal is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. Law in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of G.M.Tank vs State of Gujarat reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446, which inter alia are as under:
"20. It is thus seen that this is a case of no evidence. There is no iota of evidence against the appellant to hold that the appellant is guilty of having illegally accumulated excess income by way of gratification. The respondent failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant being a public servant used to submit his yearly property return relating to his movable and immovable property and the appellant has also Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 19/20 submitted his return in the year 1975 showing his entire movable and immovable assets. No query whatsoever was ever raised about the movable and immovable assets of the appellant. In fact, the respondent did not produce any evidence in support of and/or about the alleged charges levelled against the appellant. Likewise, the criminal proceedings were initiated against the appellant for the alleged charges punishable under the provisions of the PC Act on the same set of facts and evidence. It was submitted that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar (verbatim) set of facts and evidence. The appellant has been honourably acquitted by the competent court on the same set of facts, evidence and witness and, therefore, the dismissal order based on the same set of facts and evidence on the departmental side is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
24. In Corpn. of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra [(1981) 2 SCC 714 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 455 : AIR 1984 SC 626] the same question arose before this Court. This Court, in para 6, held as under: (SCC p.
718) "6. The other question that remains is if the respondents are acquitted in the criminal case whether or not the departmental inquiry pending against the respondents would have to continue.
This is a matter which is to be decided by the department after considering the nature of the findings given by the criminal court. Normally where the accused is acquitted honourably and completely exonerated of the charges it would not be expedient to continue a departmental inquiry on the very same charges or grounds or evidence, but the fact remains, however, that merely because the accused is acquitted, the power of the authority concerned to continue the departmental inquiry is not taken away nor is its direction [discretion] in any way fettered."
29. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case, even considering that the departmental proceeding was delayed on account of pendency of the criminal case can be resumed and Patna High Court CWJC No.11755 of 2015 dt.24-03-2026 20/20 proceed but the said criminal case has been closed, the continuation of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in which he has been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer from all the charges can be said to be wholly unjustified and is vitiated on account of inordinate delay, as well as, in absence of substantive material to establish culpability on the part of the petitioner.
30. Accordingly, the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, arising out of the charges framed pursuant to the inquiry report dated 21.11.2013 and culminating in the punishment order dated 26.02.2020, as well as, the subsequent proceedings for reconsideration thereof, are hereby quashed and set aside as being illegal and void.
31. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
32. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Purnendu Singh, J) chn/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 25.02.2026 Uploading Date 24.03.2026 Transmission Date