Patna High Court
Navin Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 13 February, 2026
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.366 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9015 of 2023
======================================================
Navin Kumar Singh Son of Late Satyadeo Singh, Resident of 501, Durga Her-
itage, Jagdeo Path, P.S. - Shastrinagar, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna (Bi-
har).
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department (Police Branch), Govern-
ment of Bihar, Patna (Bihar).
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chhapra.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik and Welfare Section), Bi-
har, Patna.
6. The Police Superintendent, Saran, Chhapra.
7. The Police Superintendent cum Inquiry Officer, Siwan.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Samir Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr.P.K.Verma, AAG 3
Mr.Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG 3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-02-2026
Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Samir Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr. P.K.Verma, learned
AAG 3 along with Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, learned AC to AAG 3
for the State.
2. The present review application has been filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section
114 of Code of Civil Procedure and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review of order dated
Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026
2/48
14.11.2024passed in CWJC No. 9015 of 2023 (Navin Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.).
3. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was posted as S.H.O.-cum-Inspector, Chapra Muffasil, constables of the said police station apprehended a sand loaded Truck from No Entry Area of the Town, the petitioner was informed and a letter in this regard was sent to the concerned Mining Officer and the District Transport Officer (DTO). Just after two days of the incident, the truck owner made a complaint against the constables of the said Police Station before the Superintendent of Police, Saran, upon which the inquiry was initiated and the constables were found guilty but the petitioner was not found guilty in spite of that the authority concerned initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner and in the said departmental proceeding, the petitioner was found guilty and order of penalty was inflicted by which the petitioner was demoted to the post of Sub Inspector. Against the order of punishment, the petitioner filed CWJC no. 9015 of 2023 and this Court vide order dated 14.11.2024, in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Bharat Singh & Ors. vs State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 1988 (4) SCC 534 did not interfere with the order of punishment in absence of any Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 3/48 evidence in support of the reliefs and the pleadings made in the writ petition.
4. The facts and the information as per the different paragraphs of the writ petition are being reproduced hereinafter as follows :
1. That present writ application is being preferred before this Hon'ble Court for the following relief(s):-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents to quash the order dated 02.11.2022 containing Memo No. 668 issued by respondent no. 3 whereby imposed a punishment of reverting the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector for five years with cumulative effect.
(ii) For any other relief(s) for, which the Petitioner is found entitled in the eye of law
02. That the Substantial question of law involved in the present writ application as follows.
(I) Whether memo of charge has framed against petitioner accordance with law and copy has been served to him?
(ii) Whether departmental proceeding was conducted by the conducting officer accordance with law?
(iii), Whether show cause asked by authority after supply him necessary documents for show cause?
(iv) Whether enquiry witnesses examined by the conducting officer during proceeding are formal witnesses?
(v) Whether complainant and writer constable of the police station as witnesses examined by the conducting officer during proceeding who are important witnesses?
(vi) Whether at the time of ask show cause from any document relevant to the proceeding against petitioner was served to him?
(vii) Whether impugned order passed by the authority after proper consider the show Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 4/48 cause of the petitioner?
(viii) Whether respondent authorities are harass the petitioner?
ix) Whether action of the respondent authorities is glaring example of their high handedness?
(x) Whether there is violation of Article and 14, 16 and 21 guaranteed under the Constitution of India on parts of the Respondents authorities?
03. That Petitioner is citizen of India and he resides well within territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble High Court.
04. That one Harish Yadav given complain to the Superintendent of Police, Saran, Chhapra on 19.06.2018 in which he had stated on 18.06.2018 in the evening at about 6.30 PM from Sadar to Siwan carry sand in Truck and when he was reached near Chhapra (Muffasil) Police Station then four police personals (constables) in civil dress on two motorcycle stopped him, they said to went in police station When he was object then they have abuse and assault, taken truck in the police station. Thereafter, applicant was taken away from his truck and they have mere search of the truck taken key of truck, challan of sand and Rs. 45,000/-out of Rs. 60,000/- which was in the truck of applicant. When he was demanded money then they have abused him. At about 12.30 Night they have came with a sand lodged truck and unloaded that sand in the truck of applicant. Applicant Harish Yadav made request to return his amount Rs. 45,000/- and take action against those four constables.
05. That on the application of Harish Yadav the Superintendent of Police, Saran, Chhapra as directed on 20.06.2018 to S.D.P.O., Chhapra Sadar, to inquiry the matter and submit report. S.D.P.O., Chhapra Sadar during inquiry applicant Harish Yadav stated that he has loaded sand from Sahar. Ara, to Siwan. About 100 meter before the Chhapra (Muffasil) Police Station four persons in civil dress on two motorcycle bearing Registration No. 9543 and 6861 overtake his 12 wheelers truck bearing Registration No. CG07BC- 2216 and stopped him, taken the truck in the Chhapra Police Station and during search they have taken key of truck as well as Challan of Sand They have also taken Rs. 45,000/- out of Rs. 60,000/- which was taken by him in the truck. They have also demanding Rs. 30,000/- to release sand loaded truck. In the night at Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 5/48 12.00 Hrs, they have abused and said to him to go at the road and they have loaded sand in his truck from other vehicle. The truck driver Ram Charitar Yadav stated that four constable on two motorcycle overtake the truck and taken him in police station. In the night they were sleeping in truck and in the morning when they fold Tripal then saw that some sand was on the land just like some sand is loaded in his truck from another vehicle but they have not seen loading sand in his truck. In the morning owner of the truck stated that Rs. 45,000/- had been stolen from vehicle out of Rs. 60,000/- S.D.P.O., Chhapra Sadar was also taken statements of constables who was on duty that time at Mathiya Mor from at about 3.45 PM, truck was stopped by them. They have stated truck was entered in the town then they have caught him, taken in the police station and key of truck as well as challan of sand was given to the writer constable of police station. Writer constable of police station Rakesh Kumar was said on 18.06.2018 sand loaded truck in question was taken by constables in police station and handed over key of truck as well as challan of sand to him and thereafter they went in duty. On 19.06.2018 report regarding over loaded sand truck in question was given to Mining Officer containing Memo No.1165/18 dated 18.06.2018 and Transport Officer containing Memo No. 1166/18 dated 18.06.2018 to take proper action. Truck driver and owner had identified Constables Santosh Kumar and Sunil Kumar Tiwary that they have assaulted and abused them. S.D.P.O, Chhapra Sadar submitted his report containing Memo No. 2693 dated 21.06.2018 in which he had stated that constables caught the truck in question which entered in no entry area from Mathiya Mor about 100 meter south from the post of police station. Truck Driver was sleeping in the truck in the night and he has not supported regarding sand was loaded in his truck at the night and constable was taken Rs. 45,000/- from the truck. Owner of the truck Harish Yadav only to save from over loading of truck made such allegations against the police personals. He has not ignored that police constables have misbehave with applicant Harish Yadav.
06. That after submission of enquiry by the SDPO, Chapra Sadar to the S.P. Saran, Chhapra on 21.06.2018 at about 11.00 AM the S.P Saran, Chhapra himself enquired from Chhapra (Muffasil) Police Station in which found that on 18.06.2018 at about 2.45 PM four police constables caught truck in question which was entered in no entry area and taken into the police station. At that time as per O.D. Register of police station S.I. Budheshwar Upadhyay Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 6/48 was not present there and key of truck was handed over to the writer constable Rakesh Kumar Rakesh Kumar was stated that S.H.O. of Police Station was busy in work and when he was return on 19.06.2018 and 11.00 A.M. then he was informed matter to him but S.H.O. was said to him on 18.06.2018 that for proper enquiry and action on truck in question he has send letter to Mining Officer by Memo No. 1165/18 dated 18.06.2018 and to District Transport Officer, vide letter No. 1166/18 dated 18.06.2018. In telephonic talk on 20.06.2018 at 2.00 P.M. S.H.O. was stated that there is no action had been taken. There is contradictory in the statement of writer constable namely Rakesh Kumar and the S.H.O From the Peon Book of the police station it has been cleared that both the letters had been delivered after 20.06.2018. He has found that S.H.O of the police station had taken truck in question two days under suspicious situation without taking any action and also tried to mislead the superior authorities. He has given letter to DIG, Saran Range. Chhapra vide Letter No.2933 dated 21.06.2018 whereby suspended the petitioner from immediate affect and recommended for departmental proceeding against him
07. That after recommendation of S.P, Siwan, Chhapra, the D.LG, Saran Range, Chhapra as framed charge on 04.07.2018 by Memo No. 1883 and initiate departmental proceeding by Saran District, Departmental Inquiry (proceeding) No. 48/18 against the petitioner in which Sri Navin Chandra Jha, S.P. Siwan was appointed as the Enquiry Officer but copy of Memo of Charge to initiate departmental proceeding against petitioner has never been served to the petitioner
08. That without service of Memo of Charge to petitioner after receiving of telephonic information to him he had submitted his first show cause to the enquiry officer on 04.08.2019 along with annexing relevant documents in which he has stated that the truck in question was taken by the constables in no entry area of town and petitioner had take proper action on the same day informed to the District Mining Officer, Saran by Memo No. 1165/18 dated 18.06.2018 and to the District Transport Officer, Saran by Memo No. 1166/18 dated 18.06.2018 issued under his signature dated 18.06.2018 and also entered in the peon book on the same day Truck in question was standing in the police station about two month and ten days and after payment of fine that was Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 7/48 released after 08.09.2018 whereas without any evidence charge has been framed that truck in question was standing two days without any action in the part of the petitioner It is also relevant to mention here that S.P. Saran in his report stated that statement of writer constable Rakesh Kumar and the petitioner are contradictory Both the letters were issued under signature of petitioner on 18.06.2018 and same was entered in the peon book by the writer constable namely Rakesh Kumar in his own handwriting then his statement that he had informed to the petitioner on 19.06.2018 at 11.00 AM. is himself wrong statement. Petitioner has never been misleading to his superior officer It is also relevant that application Harish Yadav in his application dated 19.06.2018 to the S.P, Saran, not made allegation against the petitioner whereas he had made allegation against the constables was on duty and after direction of the S.P, Saran, S.D.P.O., Chhapra Sadar, had made enquiry and submitted his report and not found any allegation against the petitioner although he has stated in his report dated 21.06.2018 that the constables on duty where misbehaved with the applicant. But in the letter dated 21.06.2018, S.P., Saran, had not made enquiry about behaviors of the constables on duty that time which is main allegation in the complain of the complainant Harish Yadav and entire report has been submitted about issuance of letter and entry in peon book.
09. That Enquiry Officer had examined four enquiry witnesses during the proceeding. Enquiry Witness No. 1 Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, S.D.P.O., Saran Sadar, had given his statement in writing in which he had stated that on the application of Harish Yadav after direction of the S.P., Saran, he had enquired the matter and submitted his enquiry report by his office Memo No. 2933 dated 21.06.2018 and he had identified his signature on the said enquiry report. Enquiry Witness No. 2 A.S.I. Deepak Kumar Singh who was posted crime reader in the office of S.P., Chhapra, had given his written statement that Memo No. 2933 dated 21.06.2018 was issued from the office of S.P., Saran in short signature of Sri Hari Kishore Rai, I P.S., present S.P. Saran which he identified. Enquiry Witness No. 3 A.S.I., Chandan Pratap Singh, who is incharge of Gopniye Branch of D.I.G., Office, Saran Range, Chhapra given his written statement in which he has stated Saran Range Order No: 112/18 and Memo No. 1774 dated 22.06.2018 had been issued under signature of the D.IG., Saran Range, Chhapra, which Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 8/48 he has identified whereby petitioner was suspended. Enquiry Witness No. 4 S.I Indra Kumar Singh, who posted in police line, Saran given his written statement in which he had stated District Order No. 13077/18 had been issued from office of the S.P. Saran, under signature of Sri Hari Kishore Rai, 1 P.S., present S.P, Saran, which signature has been identified by him The Enquiry Officer namely Shri Naveen Chandra Jha, I.P.S., S.P, Siwan cum Conducting Officer given his finding dated 26.08.2019 in Departmental Proceeding No. 48/18 in which he found that the charge has been not proved against the petitioner Enquiry Officer had send file of Departmental Proceeding No. 48/18 along with his finding to the D.I.G. Saran Range, Chhapra, for final order by Memo No. 7204.
10. That D.I.G, Saran Range, Chhapra, had remand proceeding document to the conducting officer vide memo no. 2492 dated 13.09.2019 with statement that in the departmental enquiry on the point No. 3 and 4 of the Memo of Charge has been not enquired.
11. That Enquiry Officer had demanded show cause from the petitioner on further conducting the departmental proceeding in the light of the direction of D.I.G., Saran Range, Chhapra without serving any document. Petitioner has submitted his show cause on 12.07.2021 in which he had. stated that the complainant Harish Yadav was not made allegation the petitioner Entry in station diary of police station is not made which vehicle are caught in fault of transportation and therefore entry of truck in question is not made in the station diary of the police station Truck in question was released after 02 months and 10 days by the Mining Officer, Saran and the District Transport officer, Saran after depositing fine to the respective department. He had also stated that in earlier of departmental proceeding petitioner was exonerated from proceeding found not guilty
12. That D.I.G., Saran Range, Chhapra, has issued a letter dated 26.06.2022 containing memo no. 869 in which he had demanded final show cause from petitioner against charge proved by the enquiry officer Copy of the finding of the enquiry officer and other relevant documents of the further conducting proceeding has not been supplied to the petitioner at the time of demanding final show cause.
13. That petitioner has submitted his final show cause to the DIG, Saran Range, Chhapra, on 07.07.2022 in Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 9/48 which he had stated truck in question was not detained by the petitioner in latches of the any action whereby alleged truck was taken on 18.06.2018 and on same day petitioner issued letter to the District Mining Officer, Saran, and District Transport Officer, Saran. Writer Constable namely Rakesh Kumar had entered both the letters in the peon book in his own handwriting on 18.06.2018 and send to the both concerned offices. The statement of writer constable Rakesh Kumar was differ from the documents then authorities are required to asked show cause from writer constable Rakesh Kumar and initiate departmental proceeding against him but same was not made by the authorities. Complainant Harish Yadav was not made allegation against the petitioner and his truck in question was released after two months and ten days after payment of fine in the respective office.
14. That petitioner has written letter to the office of D.I.G., Saran Range, Chhapra, on 07.08.2022 in which he had stated on which point further proceeding was conducted as well as finding of the enquiry officer in the further proceeding had been not provided to him which is against the Entry No. 49 of Police Manual Rule 828, Police Order No. 109 and Section 17/21 of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Petitioner has requested that before taking any decision provide copy of the enquiry report and points raised by the D.I.G, Saran Range, Chhapra, of the memo of charge to initiate further proceeding. He has requested to provide the relevant document earlier then he will submit his proper show cause in the office.
15. That in the reply of application of the petitioner dated 07.08.2022, D.I.G, Saran Range, Chhapra, has issued a letter by memo No. 1071 dated 11.08.2022, in which he had stated that petitioner has already submitted his final show cause and in which he had not demanded any document. In proceeding document has already send to the office of Director General of Police. Bihar, Patna, vide his office Memo No. 1042 dated 04.08.2022.
16. That DIG (Karmik), Bihar, Patna, issued letter dated 14.09.2022 in which demanded show cause from the petitioner against punishment in Saran District Departmental Proceeding No. 48/2018 annexing photo copy of the document the memo of charge dated 04.07.2018, finding of the second enquiry officer dated 08.06.2022 and recommendation Administrative Authority under Rule 825 A of the Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 10/48 Police Manual dated 04.08.2022. It is relevant to mention here that first time respondents served copy of memo of charge dated 04.07.2018, finding of the second enquiry officer dated 08.06.2022 and recommendation of DIG, Saran for punishment dated 04.08.2022 is served to the petitioner with letter dated 14.09.2022.
17. That petitioner has submitted his show cause against the punishment on 21.09.2022 in which he has raised several points for consideration at that time of taking decision. He has also stated that at the time of asking show cause from petitioner never any documents had been provided to him accordance with law. Regarding on the point of over writing on the issued register never show cause was demanded by the authority whereas in the finding it has been mentioned, however, issue register of the police station is being taken by the writer constable of the police station. In the question of non entry about the truck in question in the station diary of the police station it has mentioned that there is no previous tradition that travelling of unauthorized truck has been entered in the station diary of police station. All the enquiry witnesses, examined before enquiry officer are formal witnesses accept Enquiry Witness No. 1 S.D.P.O., Ajay and his statement is not considered by the enquiry officer at the time of giving his finding in the further departmental proceeding.
18. That the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, vide his order dated 02 11.2022 containing Memo No. 668 whereby given punishment in Saran District Departmental Proceeding No. 48/2018 to the petitioner that for five years he has demoted on the post of police sub inspector with cumulative effect. During suspension period which have paid to the petitioner no further additional payment will be made.
19. That the S.P (C), Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna, communicated order of the D.G.P., Bihar, Patna, vide Memo No. 2857 dated 15.11.2022 to enter said order in the service book of the petitioner and its copy has been also forwarded to the Petitioner.
20. That petitioner has filed appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary. Department of Home (Police), Govt. of Bihar, Bihar, Patna, on 21.11.2022, in which he had stated that in the First Departmental Proceeding. petitioner was found not guilty and again further Second Departmental Proceeding was Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 11/48 initiated on the basis of same charge. Complainant Harish Yadav was given application not made any allegation against the petitioner and complainant Harish Yadav was not included as enquiry witness in the witness list of the memo of charge There are five charges has been explained in the memo of charge but further Departmental Proceeding was conducted from the Charge No. 3 and 4 and both the charges are vague on which further Departmental Proceeding is not accordance with law Petitioner was also raised several points in his appeal which was not considered by the enquiry officer as well as his higher authorities.
21. That it is relevant to mention here that as per direction of police head quarter D.I.G. (Karmik), Bihar, Patna had issued a letter dated 20.05.2022 in which it has been mentioned that without any fault and accordance with law the departmental proceeding (enquiry) will be conduct. It has been mentioned there are 32 points in the letter on which in general on default in the departmental proceeding (enquiry) conducted by the enquiry officer which are against Rule 17 and 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
22. That petitioner has given application to the Additional Chief Secretary. Home Department (Home), Govt. of Bihar, Patna, in which petitioner has raised that the Departmental Proceeding is default on several points as stated in Letter No. 294 dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure-18). He has stated that show cause was demanded from petitioner without giving copy of memo of charge to initiate departmental proceeding. Enquiry Officer and aggrieved complainant were not made witness and the aggrieved victim complainant is not examined by the conducting officer Only on the basis of formal witnesses petitioner is found guilty in the proceeding and copy of the finding of the conducting officer was not provided to the petitioner The authority not given proper reason for rejecting of the show cause of the petitioner and in mechanical manner passed the order without considering the show cause submitted by the petitioner Entire Departmental Proceeding is vitiated not accordance with law and it is against the Rules of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.
23. That it is stated and submitted that complainant was not made any complain against petitioner. He was made complain against constables to the S.P., Saran. S.P, Saran had entrusted to the Dy S. P, Chhapra Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 12/48 Sadar for enquiry and Dy. S. P. Chhapra Sadar had enquired the matter and submitted his report to the S.P but on the same day S.P., Saran himself enquire the matter and without consider the report of Dy S.P as well as complain of complainant under prejudice suspended the petitioner recommended for departmental proceeding against him. In departmental proceeding petitioner was exonerated from departmental proceeding not found guilty DIG, Saran was remanded to conduct departmental proceeding on two point of memo of charge and further departmental proceeding was started against petitioner. In further departmental proceeding conducting officer was submitted his opinion on that point on which never show cause was asked from petitioner and show cause asked by respondents have but never been supplied document accordance with law First time copy of the document the memo of charge dated 04.07.2018, finding of the second enquiry officer dated 08.06.2022 and recommendation Administrative Authority under Rule 825 A of the Police Manual dated 04.08.2022 was provided with letter dated 14.09.2022 issued by D.I.G. (Karmik), Bihar, Patna in which demanded show cause from the petitioner against punishment in Saran District Departmental Proceeding No. 48/2018. Prior never any document relevant to the Saran District Departmental Proceeding No. 48/2018 against petitioner was served.
24. That petitioner is again given application to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department (Police), Government of Bihar, Bihar, Patna on 12.12.2022 in which he had stated that in the Dr Hari Damodar Singh Vs State of Bihar passed in CWJC No. 334 of 2022 order dated 10.05.2022 Hon'ble High Court observed that punishment order passed by the authority without considering show cause of the petitioner Present matter of petitioner is similar and without consider his show cause passed final order of punishment which is require to set aside.
25. That action of the respondent authorities is in arbitrary manner Petitioner has running pillars to post for redressal of his grievances.
26. That Petitioner has no efficacious remedy than filing of the present writ application before this Hon'ble Court.
27. That Petitioner has never moved earlier before this Hon'ble Court in this matter." Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 13/48
5. After hearing the respective parties, this Court has passed following orders on 14.11.2025 in CWJC No.9015 of 2023, which are reproduced hereinafter inter alia as follows : -
"Re.: I.A. No. 01 of 20231. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner by filing the present Interlocutory Application seeks amendment in Para-1 of the writ petition by adding additional relief as stated in Para-1 of the present interlocutory application.
2. Having considered the information contained in the interlocutory application and the grounds mentioned therein and the affidavit, I find that there are sufficient reason to allow the amendment of the prayer as prayed in Para-1 of the writ petition by adding additional relief as stated in Para-1 of the interlocutory application.
3. Office/petitioner is directed to take steps to amend Para-1 of the writ petition by adding additional relief as stated in Para-1 of the interlocutory application.
4. I.A. No. 01 of 2023 is allowed.Re.: C.W.J.C. No. 9015 of 2023
5. Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Fazle Karim, learned AC to SC-1 for the State.
6. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-
"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents to quash the order dated 02.11.2022 containing Memo No. 668 issued by respondent no. 3 whereby imposed a punishment of reverting the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector for five years with cumulative effect.
(ii) For any other relief(s) for, which the Petitioner is found entitled in the eye of law."
7. Learned senior counsel, at the outset, submitted that the entire disciplinary proceeding is vitiated in the eye of law, as the charge memo itself has not been approved by the disciplinary authority who in the present case is the Director General of Police. Learned counsel referring to charge memo (Annexure-4) submits that first part of the charge memo relates to personal information of the government employee, second part relates to summary of the allegations of misconduct, third parts relates to allegations of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior and fourth part relates to evidences in support of the charge. All Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 14/48 the parts have been issued under the signature of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chhapra and has not been approved by the disciplinary authority.
8. Learned counsel in above view submitted that from the statement made in the counter affidavit, there is no pleading or evidence relating to any authorization to have been given or any notification authorizing the Deputy Inspector General, Saran Range, Chhapra to be the disciplinary authority in accordance with the provision of Rule 16 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, the entire disciplinary action against the petitioner is vitiated in the eye of law. Learned senior counsel in support of his contention relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. B. V. Gopinath, reported in 2014 (1) SCC 351, submitted that in the said case also, the charge memo was not approved by the disciplinary authority, the same having not fulfilled the mandate of Article 311 was set aside holding the proceeding also to be vitiated in the eye of law. Learned counsel further informs this Court that the petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty order dated 02.11.2022 contained in Memo No. 668 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) and order dated 22.06.2023 contained in Memo No. 7493, whereby memorial appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 02.11.2022 passed in Saran District Departmental Proceeding No. 48 of 2018 has been rejected, are vitiated in the eye of law.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that no information relating to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chhapra as to whether he has been authorized or not, has been given in the counter affidavit, the same cannot vitiate the entire departmental proceeding. The petitioner was provided with due opportunity of hearing and he had also participated before the Inquiry Officer who gave him all opportunity to defend his case, produce witnesses and examine and cross-examine the witnesses produced by the presenting officer. So far as the technical plea taken by the petitioner that the charge memo has not been approved by the disciplinary authority cannot be interfered with in view of the fact that final penalty order has been passed by the disciplinary authority.
10. Heard the parties.
11. At the outset, I must record that in want of specific pleading made in the writ petition and the supported documents, especially forwarding letter along with the charge memo for initiating disciplinary proceeding (Annexure-4) has not been brought on record to judge the legality of the charge memo in question. However, going by the words of the learned senior counsel that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Director General of Police, it can be said that, in want of approval by the disciplinary authority, who is the Director General of Police, the charge Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 15/48 memo issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chhapra don't confirm the requirement of Rule 16 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and Article 311 of the Constitution, which calls for interference of this Court. I find that if the information recorded hereinabove is found to be correct, then, the charge memo so served to the petitioner not in conformity with the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 calls for interference. It is well settled that in absence of pleading and supporting documents for judging the validity of the charge memo, the writ petition must be held to be not maintainable in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Sarup Gupta Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and Ors., reported in (1987) 2 SCC 555 in view of the observation made in Para no. 6, which is, inter alia, reproduced herein after:
"It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should settle the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. The pleadings however should receive a liberal construction; no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair- splitting technicalities."
12. The Apex Court has reiterated the said proposition in the case of Bharat Singh & Ors. vs State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 1988 (4) SCC 534, in respect of maintainability of the writ petition in want of pleading in para no. 6, and has made following observation, which is, inter alia, reproduced herein after:
"In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter- affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 16/48 be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us by the appellants is not entertainable. But, in spite of that, we have entertained it to show that it is devoid of any merit.
13. At the same time, I also find that the counter affidavit is too devoid of pleading and evidence to support the penalty order right from the beginning of the disciplinary proceeding.
14. As regard to the relief sought by the petitioner, I find it proper to take note of Rule 16 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, which prescribes for the authority to institute proceedings and the same is reproduced hereinafter:
"16. Authority to institute proceedings.
(1)The Government or appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate or any other authority empowered by general or special order of the Government may-
(a)institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government Servant;
(b)direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government Servant on whom that disciplinary authority is competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 14 under these Rules. (2)A disciplinary authority, competent under these Rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 14, may institute disciplinary proceedings against any government servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses [(vi) to (xi)] [Substituted by Notification No. 3/M-166/2006-
Ka-2797, dated 20.8.2007] of Rule 14 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these Rules to impose any of the penalties under clauses [(vi) to (xi)] [Substituted by Notification No. 3/M-166/2006- Ka-2797, dated 20.8.2007] of Rule 14."
15. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. B. V. Gopinath, reported in 2014 (1) SCC 351, in Para-52 of the said judgment, has held as under:
"52. In our opinion, the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General is not factually correct. The primary submission of the respondent was that the charge-sheet not having been issued by the disciplinary authority is without authority of law and, therefore, non est in the eye of the law. This Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 17/48 plea of the respondent has been accepted by CAT as also by the High Court. The action has been taken against the respondent in Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules which enjoins the disciplinary authority to draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges. The term "cause to be drawn up" does not mean that the definite and distinct articles of charges once drawn up do not have to be approved by the disciplinary authority. The term "cause to be drawn up" merely refers to a delegation by the disciplinary authority to a subordinate authority to perform the task of drawing up substance of proposed "definite and distinct articles of charge-
sheet". These proposed articles of charge would only be finalised upon approval by the disciplinary authority. Undoubtedly, this Court in P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. CAG [(1993) 1 SCC 419 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 206 : (1993) 23 ATC 645] has held that Article 311(1) does not say that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority. However, at the same time it is pointed out that: (SCC p. 422, para 4) "4. ... However, it is open to the Union of India or a State Government to make any rule prescribing that even the proceeding against any delinquent officer shall be initiated by an officer not subordinate to the appointing authority." It is further held that: (SCC p. 422, para 4) "4. ... Any such rule shall not be inconsistent with Article 311 of the Constitution because it will amount to providing an additional safeguard or protection to the holders of a civil post."s
16. The above mentioned decision concluded in the case of B. V. Gopinath (supra), wherein the Apex Court held that the charge sheet/charge memo having not been approved by the disciplinary authority would be non est in the eyes of law. Similar view was taken by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India reported in (2021) 20 SCC 12.
17. The said proposition was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu Vs. Pramod Kumar, IPS & Anr. reported in 2018 (17) SCC 677. It is also apt to extract the relevant portion from the decision in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in 2006 (12) SCC 28, which reads as under:-
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 18/48 Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001 (10) SCC 639, State of UP vs. Brahm datt Sharma and another. AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance."
(emphasis supplied)
18. In the case of Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2012 (11) SCC 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as under:-
"8. Law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/ tribunal may quash the charge- sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance.
19. Further, the Apex Court in case of Chairman-Cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd.
and Others Vs. Ananta Saha and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142 held that the Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 19/48 charge memo cannot be issued in a casual or routine manner and the disciplinary authority is required to apply his mind before its issuance. In the aforesaid case the legal maxim "sub lato fundamento cadit opus" has been referred and it was held that, where initial action is not in consonance with law subsequent proceeding would not sanctify the same.
However, in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Singh (supra), I don't want to interfere in any manner.
20. The petitioner, if so advised, may file his representation before the appropriate authority having jurisdiction for taking corrective measures, if required, to be carried out in accordance with the provision of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, the manner prescribed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court referred hereinabove.
21. The writ petition stands disposed of.
22. There shall be no order as to costs."
6. The petitioner instead of filing Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 14.11.2024 passed in CWJC No. 9015/2023 has preferred the present Review Application on following circumstances and grounds, which are reproduced hereinafter as under:
"That this review application is being filed against the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh in C.W.J.C. No. 9015 of 2023 (Navin Kumar Singh V/S The State of Bihar & Ors) whereby and where under the writ application filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by the following order:-
"11. At the outset, 1 must record that in want of specific pleading made in the writ petition and the supported documents, especially forwarding Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 20/48 letter along with the charge memo for initiating disciplinary proceeding (Annexure-4) has not been brought on record to judge the legality of the charge memo in question. However, going by the words of the learned senior counsel that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Director General of Police. it can be said that, in want of approval by the disciplinary authority, who is the Director General of Police, the charge memo issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range. Chhapra don't confirm the requirement of Rule 16 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and Article 311 of the Constitution, which calls for interference of this Court. I find that if the information recorded hereinabove is found to be correct, then, the charge memo so served to the petitioner not in conformity with the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 calls for interference. It ...........
19............ However, in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Singh (supra), I don't want to interfere in any manner.
20. The petitioner, if so advised, may file his representation before the appropriate authority having jurisdiction for taking corrective measures, if required, to be carried out in accordance with the provision of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. the manner prescribed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court referred hereinabove.
21. The Writ petition stands disposed of.
22. There shall be no order as to costs."
2. That the petitioner has not moved earlier before this Hon'ble Court in the matter.
3. That on 14.11.2024 this case was taken up for out of turn hearing at 3.30 p.m. and during the course of the argument the court at the threshold picked up the issue with regard to Charge Memo issued on 04.07.2018 (Annexure 4 to the writ application) and found that the Charge Memo has not been issued by Disciplinary Authority who is the DGP an was pleased to quash the impugned orders in the open court with a further direction to initiate the disciplinary proceeding from the stage of the Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 21/48 defect itself.
4. That the petitioner was informed of the outcome by the Advocate on Record and was confirmed by the Arguing Counsel about the quashing of the impugned orders by the order pronounced in the open court immediately after the conclusion of the argument.
5. That the petitioner is bringing on record an affidavit to the said affect sworn by Arguing Counsel stating that the court was pleased to quash the impugned orders in the open court.
6. That it is stated that as the order that was pronounced was contrary to what had been dictated in the open court. That the order dictated in the open court had quashed the impugned orders of the punishment, and the order that was finally pronounced on 20.11.2024 stated that the court was not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders and gave liberty for unknown reasons to file representation before the appropriate authority.
7. That the action of the court to change the outcome without putting the parties to notice and without hearing the parties has gravely prejudiced the petitioner."
8. That petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2022 contained in Memo no. 668 issued by Respondent no.3 whereby he imposed punishment of reverting the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector for Five Years with Cumulative effect and order dated 22.06.2023 Contained in Memo no. 7493 issued by Additional Secretary of Government. Home Department (Police), that the Hon'ble court after hearing the parties was pleased to quash both order and further directed to reinitiate the proceeding from the stage of Framing of charge by dictating the order in open court, the order which was pronounced is not in consonance with the order dictated in the open court on subsequent occasion on 20.11.2024 without hearing the petitioner afresh Being aggrieved by and being dissatisfied with the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh in CWJC No. 9015 of 2023 the Petitioner prefers this Review application on and ansongst the following:-
GROUNDS (1) For that the Hon'ble court was pleased to pass Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 22/48 order in open court and was pleased to set aside the orders of Memorial dated 02.11.2022 and order 22.06.2023 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and as against that order, that the order which was finally pronounced is not in consonance with the order dictated in the open court.
(ii) For that in the order that was finally pronounced on 20.11.2024 it has been observed by the court that the court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders -which was contrary to the orders which was dictated in the open court.
(iii) For that the Hon'ble court was pleased to set aside the impugned orders along with the direction to start the proceeding afresh from the stage of the defect in the Disciplinary Proceeding.
(iv) For that if the Hon'ble court wanted to change the final outcome of the case it ought to have noticed the parties and ought to have disclosed its mind and heard the parties afresh.
(v) For that the pronouncement in the open court is considered to be final order of the Hon'ble court and outcome could not have been changed without notice to the parties and without hearing them.
(vi) For that there were several other procedural defects in the departmental proceeding which could have been argued and pressed, had the court noticed the parties and heard them afresh.
(vii) For that the departmental proceeding suffered from following under mentioned defects:-
a) The DIG / Disciplinary Authority did not have the power to remand back the matter for de-novo enquiry especially under the circumstances that first enquiry report had exonerated the petitioner.
b) Documents were called for by the new enquiry officer behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner was not given those documents.
c)No witnesses were produced for proving the documents.
d) The witnesses were examined behind the hack of the petitioner
e) Petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and only his Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 23/48 representation was called for by the enquiry officer.
f) There was no notes from the presenting officer leading to inference that there was no presenting officer in course of second enquiry.
g) The finding of the enquiry officer is perverse in so far as none of the witnesses where the witness of the contents of the documents presented.
(viii) For that the Hon'ble court should have noticed the parties before changing the outcome, the petitioner would have presented the above mentioned grounds, for setting aside the orders impugned in the writ application.
(ix) For that the writ application was not confined to ene single ground but the Hon'ble court did not give any opportunity to press other grounds as it thought one ground of defect in the constitution of Charge Memo was enough to set aside the impugned orders and which was not what was stated in the order that was finally pronounced on 20.11.2024.
(x) For that as soon as the judgment is delivered in the open court it becomes the operative pronouncement in the open court and it does not await signing thereof by the court and becomes final as far as parties to the proceeding are concerned. The final outcome cannot be altered by the court without hearing the parties
(xi) For that the above reasons the impugned order needs to be reviewed and the error need to be corrected.
(xii) For that any other ground shall be raised and agitated during the course of argument and the petitioner respondents reserves the right to file further grounds of review of the order as and when the same arises."
7. A second supplementary affidavit was filed on 23.09.2025 giving information that the petitioner had demanded information from the S.P., Saran on 19.09.2025 to provide following information:
Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 24/48 lwpuk ds vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 2005 d vUrxrZ lkj.k ftyk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la0& 48@18 fo:?k iq0fu0 uohu dqekj flag] rRdkyhu iq0fu0 lg Fkkuk/;{k eqQlhy Fkkuk] Nijk ls lacaf/kr lwpuk 1& lkj.k ftyk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la0&48@18 fo:?k iq0 fu0 uohu dqekj flag dks pktZ eseksa fdl frfFk dks izkIr djkbZ x;h Fkh\ 2& mi;qZDr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa iq0fu0 uohu dqekj flag ds fo:/k fuxrZ pktZ eseksa ,oa mldh QkWjokfMax dh Nk;k izfr ,oa iq0fu0 uohu dqekj flag ds }kjk pktZ eseksa izkIRk fd;s tkus ds mijkar muds }kjk cukbZ x;h izkfIr jlhn dh Nk;k izfr miyC/k djkbZ tk;A 3&vuq"kklfud izkf/kdkj lg iqfyl mi& egkfujh{kd] lkj.k {ks= }kjk vkjksih iq0fu0 uohu dqekj flag ls vafre cpko gsrq ekaxh x;h Lif'Vdj.k ds lkFk tkWp izkf/kdkj lg iqfyl v/kh{kd] floku dk tkWp izfrosnu] eUrO; ,oa vU; nLrkost layXu fd;k x;k Fkk vFkok ugha] mDr nLrkostksa dh ekax vkjksih iq0fu0 uohu dqekj flag ds }kjk fd;s tkus ij vuq"kklfud izkf/kdkj lg iqfyl mi&egkfujh{kd] lkj.k }kjk ftl i= ds ek/;e ls mrj fn;k x;k mldh Nk;k izfr rFkk ekaxh x;h Lif'Vdj.k dh Nk;k izfr miyC/k djkbZ tk;A
8. The statement contained in paragraph no.3 of the Second Supplementary Affidavit is reproduced inter alia hereinafter as under :
"3. That petitioner under RTI demanded information from Superintendent of Police, Saran on 19.09.2025 whereby requested to provide information as follows:
(I) In the Saran District Departmental Proceeding no. 48/2018 when charge of memo has provided the petitioner.
(II) In the aforesaid departmental proceeding copy of charge memo and its forwarding as well as copy its receiving to the petitioner shall be provide (III) In the aforesaid departmental proceeding when ask final show cause inquiry report of Inquiry Officer Cum SP, Siwan, opinion and other relevant documents has been attached with final shows notice served to the petitioner. Petitioner was earlier demanded aforesaid documents then Disciplinary Authority Cum DIG, Saran has given reply.
Please provide copy of show cause notice and Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 25/48 reply of Disciplinary Authority Cum DIG, Saran.
9. The present review application was taken up for the first time on 10.10.2025 and inter alia following orders was passed :
"Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State seeks four weeks time to bring on record the entire record relating to disciplinary action taken against the petitioner in respect of issuance of the charge memo dtaed 04.11.2025.
2. As prayed for, re-notify on 14.11.2025."
10. The review application was posted on 05.12.2025, on which date, the learned State counsel was not having records of the disciplinary proceeding.
11. The matter was taken up on 09.01.2026 and three weeks' time was sought on behalf of the petitioner to peruse the record and the learned AAG finds it proper to provide all co-operation to the petitioner to peruse the record.
12. Today, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informs that the third supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and in paragraph no.3 following information has been given, which are reproduced hereinafter as follows :
"3. That present supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioner to bring on Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 26/48 record some important facts for consideration in the present civil review after perused of the original records relating to disciplinary action taken against the petitioner in Departmental Proceedings no. 48/2018 petitioner submitted additional ground in the present civil review application as follow :
(I) The truck owner Harish Kumar (truck loaded with sand), who had been made complain on 19.06.2018 to the SP, Saran for the occurrence dated 18.09.2018 against four police personal who are constable of the Chapra Muffasil, Police Station not against the petitioner who was SHO of the police station. (Page 1 of the original proceeding record).
(II) On complain of the truck owner Harish Kumar dated 19.06.2018 the SP, Saran was given inquiry to the Dy.S.P., Sadar Chapra who submitted his inquiry report dated 21.06.2018 in which he was found guilty of the constable. (Page 4 of the original proceeding record).
(III) On the same day dated 21.06.2018 SP, Suran has personally came in the police station and he was recommended for suspension and initiate Departmental Proceedings against petitioner. (Page-5 of the original record). On the recommendation of SP, Saran petitioner was suspended by the order of DIG, Saran range, Chapra dated 22.06.2018. (Page 7 of the original proceeding record).
(IV) Copy of charge memo dated 04.07.2018 has not been given to the petitioner and no evidence to serve him the same. (Page 9 of the original proceeding record).
(V) After inquiry in the Departmental Proceedings the inquiry officer S.P. Siwan namely Shri. Naveen Chandra Jha submitted his opinion dated 26.08.2019 who found that charge is not proved against the petitioner and Departmental Proceeding records sent to the DIG. (Page 49 to 53 of the original proceeding record).
VI) The DIG after collecting again evidence remanded vide letter dated 13.09.2019 Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 27/48 Departmental Proceeding for further inquiry on the point no. 3 and 4 of charge memo.
(Page 17 of the original proceeding record).
(VII) On 20.02.2020 statement of witness ASI Deepak Kumar Singh was again recorded without giving proper opportunity to cross the witness by the petitioner. (Page 92 of the original proceeding record).
(VIII) Statement of the witness SI Harendra Kumar Singh was recorded without giving opportunity to cross the witness by petitioner. (Page 113 of the original proceeding record).
(IX) In the departmental proceeding notice to the petitioner participate in departmental proceeding has not properly served on several occasion. Whenever notice to the petitioner is served then on said date petitioner was appeared in proceedings of the departmental proceeding.
(X) Statement of the witness Dy. S.P. Shri Ajay Kumar Singh was recorded and petitioner was also present but him opportunity to cross the witness was not given. Petitioner was demanded copy of document on the same day to file his last show cause but only the copy of statement of witness Dy S.P Ajay Kumar Singh has been served to the petitioner (Page 121, 122 of the original proceeding record and order on page 11 of the order sheet in original proceeding record).
(XI) On 08.06.2022 present inquiry officer submitted his opinion in re-conduct the departmental proceeding and found guilty the petitioner and sent the departmental proceeding record to DIG. (Page 104 to 197 of the original proceeding record).
(XII) On 26.06.2012 DIG demanded last show cause against punishment from petitioner within one week without providing any document of the departmental proceeding. (Page 198 of the original proceeding record).
(XIII) Petitioner received said last show cause notice on 05.07.2022 and he has submitted his last show cause against punishment to the DIG on 07.07.2022. 202 Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 28/48 and page 199 to 201 of the original proceeding record).
(XIV) On 19.07.2022 vide memo no. 2591 DIG was demanded some additional documents for evidence from SP, Saran which is attested copy of memo no, 1159 dated 18.06.2018 to memo no. 1170 dated 20.06.2018 (total 12 page) from dispatched register of Chapra Muffasil, Police Station. (Page 203 of the original proceeding record).
(XV) Vide letter dated 01.08.2022 the S.P., Saran provided aforesaid documents demanded by DIG. (Page 223 of the original proceeding record).
(XVI) The DGP, Bihar exercise suo moto without jurisdiction passed impugned order dated 02.11.2022. in the original records of proceeding there is no evidence that DIG has forwarded record to pass punishment order impugned. (Page 224 to 226 of the original proceeding record).
(XVII) On 07.08.2022 petitioner demanded documents of the departmental proceeding as memo of charge, copy of the witnesses, opinion of the inquiry officer ete. from DIG (Annexure 11/page 48 of the writ application) but same was not supplied. The DIG given letter dated 11.08.2022 to the petitioner stating that petitioner was not demanded said documents before submitting his last show cause. (Annexure 12/page 49 of the writ application."
13. The aforesaid grounds for review, as noted in the preceding paragraphs of this order, along with the information brought on record by way of the supplementary affidavit, constitute the basis of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, which I want to enumerate in brief that based on the above facts, it can be said that the petitioner has admitted that he was suspended by letter no.2933 Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 29/48 dated 21.06.2018 on the basis of the information given by the Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra upon the verification of allegation petition of one Harish Yadav in contemplation of the departmental proceeding against him. In paragraph no.7, an information has been given that the D.I.G., Saran Range Chapra had framed charge on the basis of allegation as contained in Charge Memo No.1883 dated 04.07.2018. The departmental inquiry was initiated, but the petitioner has denied that no charge memo served to the petitioner though he had admitted that he had received telephonic information about the same as mentioned in Paragraph no.8 of the writ petition. The learned counsel has also given information in paragraph no.9 that the Inquiry Officer had examined four inquiry witnesses during the proceeding and the Inquiry Officer gave his findings on 26.08.2019 that the charges were not proved against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer sent the file of the Departmental Proceeding No.48/18 along with the findings to the D.I.G., Saran Range, Chapra for final order. The DIG, Saran Range Chapra had differed with the inquiry report on the points no.3 and 4 and remanded the proceeding back to the Conducting Officer. The D.I.G., Saran Range Chapra vide letter dated 26.06.2022 as contained in Memo No.869 issued Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 30/48 second show cause to the petitioner raising irregularity in conduct of the departmental proceeding, however, without considering the point raised by the petitioner, the D.I.G., Saran Range Chapra on the basis of the findings of the second Inquiry Officer dated 08.06.2022 recommended for punishment dated 04.08.2022, which was served to the petitioner, vide letter dated 14.09.2022. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, vide letter dated 02.11.2022 as contained in Memo No.668 imposed punishment against the petitioner in connection with the Departmental Proceeding No.48/2018 demoting him back to the post of Sub Inspector with cumulative effect for five years during suspension period, which has been paid to the petitioner, no further additional payment will be made. The order of punishment was communicated to the S.P.(C), Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna and the petitioner thereafter filed an Appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Government of Bihar, Patna dated 21.11.2022, who also rejected the Appeal vide his order dated 20.05.2022 contained in letter no.294, which was communicated to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he was exonerated from the departmental enquiry and having not found guilty in Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 31/48 respect of two points of charge memo in respect of which, the petitioner was never served any show cause except the charge memo dated 04.07.2018, which was served to the petitioner along with the findings of the Inquiry Officer dated 08.06.2022 on 14.09.2022. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Dr. Hari Damodar Singh Vs. State of Bihar in CWJC No.334 of 2022 and filed an application before the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department (Police), Government of Bihar, Bihar, Patna to consider the case of the petitioner that without considering his show cause final order of punishment has been passed, which is required to be set aside.
14. Learned counsel further relying on a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No.12013 of 2022 (Shashis Bhushan Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), submitted that in the said writ petition also, the petitioner concerned had sought quashing of entire proceeding and penalty order contained in Memo no.593 dated 07.07.2010 issued under the signature of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur, in background of the fact that the petitioner of the said writ petition was working as Sub Inspector of Police in Bihar and was dismissed from service. It was noticed in the Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 32/48 said order that the appointment of the said petitioner was on the post of Sub Inspector of Police and the appointment letter was issued under the signature of Inspector General of Police (Admn.), Bihar, Patna, who is the Appointing Authority of the petitioner, hereof, also. In view of the mandate of the provision contained in Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, the order of dismissal, passed by an Officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police would not be sustained. The Court found that the punishment order could not be sustained in view of having passed in violation of the mandate of the provision as enshrined in Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India by the Officer below the rank of Director General of Police.
15. He further submitted that the State filed LPA No.1571 of 2014 against the said order dated 13.09.2023 passed in CWJC No.12013 of 2012 and the Hon'ble Division Bench upon analysing the provision of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India and the Bihar Police Manual 1978 particularly in respect of Rule 825 (C) and Rule 656 of Bihar Police Manual finally concluded as under :
"It becomes abundantly clear that whatever be the circumstances, once a person is appointed by a particular authority, he cannot be dismissed by any officer inferior in rank, to the one, who appointed him. In a given case, the rules may have undertaken change after a person is appointed to a service resulting in the position of the appointing authority being downgraded. That, however, does not make any difference for application of Article 311 Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 33/48 of the Constitution. What one has to see is, as to who was the officer, who signed the order of appointment of the employee. If order of punishment is signed by the officer, who happens to be the inferior in rank, the order needs to be set aside being violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. The same situation obtains in the instant case. In comparison to that, the case of the appellant is strengthened by Clause 825(a). When such is the legal and indisputable factual position, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
However, in view of the amendment that took place in the Rules we need to slightly amend the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the Inspector General was the officer who passed the order of appointment shall continue the disciplinary proceedings.
We, therefore, dispose of this Letters Patent Appeal, setting aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner and directing that the matter be remitted to the 3rd respondent. He shall continue with the proceedings from the stage at which the enquiry officer submitted his report. The 3rd respondent shall pass order independently and being uninfluenced by any of the proceedings which have taken place so far. In case, he exonerates the respondent of the charges, he shall be entitled to be reinstated, with all benefits. If any punishment is imposed, he shall not be entitled to claim any back wages.
Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs."
16. Per contra, based on the entire records, Mr. P.K. Verma, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the present application for review of order dated 14.11.2024 is not maintainable in terms of Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribes the mode, manner and circumstances under which the review petition can be entertained by this Court. Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 34/48
17. The State has chosen not to file counter affidavit as already the entire record has been placed before this Court and also for the reason that the grounds for review the order dated 14.11.2024 passed in CWJC No.9015 of 2023 required no interference in absence of any mistake pointed out on the consideration of the case on the facts and law.
18. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that no doubt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is exercised by the High Court, in its equity jurisdiction to do complete justice, the power of review can not be limited only in terms of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. So far as the original records pertaining to approval of the charge memo by the Appointing Authority are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 824 of the Bihar Police Manual, which mandates prior sanction of the competent authority for initiating disciplinary proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 (Act V of 1861) against an inferior officer subject to the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and to such rules as the State Government may from time to time frame rule. The petitioner was Inspector and the authority competent to impose even a minor punishment, particularly a punishment of reduction in rank from Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 35/48 Inspector to Sub-Inspector of Police, is the Deputy Inspector General of Police as per the Bihar Police Manual and such punishment can be inflicted only after following the due process of law as prescribed under the relevant rules. Learned counsel submitted that on perusal of the charge memo served to the petitioner, it would appear that the charge memo has been approved and signed by the D.I.G. (administration), Bihar, Patna, who is the officer above the rank of the Superintendent being the competent officer, there was no requirement, to bring any letter of approval of any higher authority or the Appointing Authority in that regard in light of the condition stipulated in Rule 828 and also Rule 656 of Bihar Police Manual (Vol.I). The DIG, Saran, Range Chapra within his jurisdiction issued the charge memo to the petitioner and following the procedure prescribed for the conduct of the disciplinary proceeding proposed punishment of reduction in rank. He admitted that the above Rule framed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India has statutory force and no interference is required by this Court to review the order dated 14.11.2024 passed in CWJC No.9015 of 2023 on the ground that the charge memo required the authorization by the I.G. of Police (Admn.) Bihar, Patna or the Director General of Police, Bihar.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 36/48
19. Heard the parties.
20. It is well settled principle of law that review is permissible only when -
(i) new and important evidence is discovered and that could not have been produced earlier with due diligence,
(ii) there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason.
21. A review by its very nature contemplates reconsideration of the same subject by the same Judge or Judges while an intra court Appeal is heard by another Division Bench of this Court. Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code creates a right to make an application for review under certain conditions and Order 47 provides for mode, manner and circumstances under which review petition can be made, heard and determined. No doubt procedure is meant to advance justice and as such cannot be treated as mandatory procedure, however, the same should be followed as far as possible, keeping in view the cause of justice.
22. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is exercised by the High Court in its equity jurisdiction and thus it has to do equity to the parties and to do complete justice to them and its power of review cannot be limited only in Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 37/48 terms of Section 114 or Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By parity of reasoning, Order 47 and Rule 5 ipso facto would not be attracted in the writ proceeding, whereas a Civil Court trying a suit (or the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction) is bound by the provision of Order 47 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The power to review is taken recourse to guide the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
23. The reason, as to why, the provision of Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in the writ proceeding has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Puran Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 1092. The Apex Court in case of Puran Singh (Supra) held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable even before coming into force of Civil Procedure code (Amendment) Act 1976. It is further held that because of the explanation, proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been excluded and as such, there is no question of making applicable the procedure of Code as far as it can be made applicable to such proceeding. The procedures prescribed in respect of suit in the Code if are made applicable to the writ proceedings then in many cases, it may frustrate the exercise of Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 38/48 extra-ordinary powers by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. High Court Rules is silent whether, the Code of Civil Procedure is to apply mutatis mitandis, as far as, they are not inconsistent with the said Rules.
It is well settled that when abuse of process of law comes into play and exercise of power is in total disregard of all canons of justice and violative of acceptable norms and manifestly exposes clear abuse of the process of law, a writ Court cannot ignore it. The basic concept of Rule of Law by which the democracy is governed and the action which is likely to create an atmosphere of anarchy and curtails the right of a person to exercise his vote, paves the path towards the darkest hour in a democracy and fossilizes the basic tenet of Rule of Law.
24. From perusal of the information as contained in review application and duly sworn affidavit on behalf of the petitioner in support of the information contained therein, it appears that the main ground of review is that this Court has not adjudicated on the basis of the information contained in the writ petition though the petitioner has been able to make out a case that there has been procedural lapses in conduct of the disciplinary proceeding, which calls for interference with the penalty order and the said question having not been analyzed Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 39/48 and determined by this Court, the petitioner is required to be given an opportunity to be heard and order is required to be passed de novo on merit.
25. This Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition found that in want of the specific pleading made in the writ petition and the supported documents, especially forwarding letter of approval of the appointing authority along with the charge memo for initiating disciplinary proceeding on record found it not necessary to go into the legality of the conduct of the departmental proceeding in accordance with Rule 17 of Bihar Government Servant CCA Rules, 2005 and did not interfere with the penalty order dated 02.11.20222. Now question arises can it be said that in want of approval by the disciplinary authority, who according to the petitioner at the time of hearing of the writ petition was the Director General of Police, Saran Range, Chhapra do not confirm the requirement of Rule 16 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The records relating to the disciplinary proceeding was produced before this Court in compliance of order dated 10.10.2025 and this Court had directed the learned State Counsel to produce the entire records relating to the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, which was Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 40/48 produced before this Court on 09.01.2026 and the record was allowed to be perused by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Therefore, before I proceed to pass order on merit, it is equally important to record that the petitioner had not brought on record his appointment letter to determine in respect of the authority who has appointed him. The petitioner has now brought on record along with the second Supplementary Affidavit Memo No.5334 dated 21.08.1994 issued under the signature of the I.G. of Police (Admn.), Bihar, Patna, who is the competent authority of the petitioner.
26. Rules relating to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector are prescribed under Rule 653 and 656 of Bihar Police Manual 1978. Rules have already been produced in this order in the above paragraphs.
27. Rule 825 (c) of the Bihar Police Manual empowers the Officer to impose punishment, which clarifies that the a Deputy Inspector General may impose on any police officer subordinate to him and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent any of the punishments prescribed in Rule 824, except dismissal, compulsory retirement and removal in the case of an Inspector.
28. Sub-rule (d) of Rule, 825 clarifies that a Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 41/48 Superintendent of Police may impose on any police officer subordinate to him and below the rank of Sub Inspector any or more of the punishments prescribed in the Rule, 824 except dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement in the case of the Sub Inspector or Assistant Sub Inspector. A list of officers competent to give punishments or order of suspension according to Act V, 1861 is given in Appendix 84.
29. Rule 828 of Bihar Police Manual deals with the Infliction of major punishments and clarifies the punishments permitted by Rule 824. The items in serials (a) to (f) of that Rule shall be regarded as major punishments, and shall be inflicted by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent.
30. Sub Rule (b) of Rule 828 clarifies without prejudice to the provision of the Public Servants Enquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction shall be passed on any police officer (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal court) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action, and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself in reference to Appendix 40.
31. Sub Rule (d) of Rule 828 of Bihar Police Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 42/48 Manual clarifies that whenever such a possibility arises, the Officer, who is competent to remove or reduce delinquent in the rank shall formally give orders as decided by the Governor which shall be considered final.
32. For taking disciplinary action, procedure is required to be followed as prescribed in Bihar Government Servant (CCA) Rules, 2005. In accordance with Sub Rule I and Rule II of Rule 16 of Bihar Government Servant (CCA) Rules, 2005, the charge memo is required to be approved by the competent authority.
33. The charge memo/show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under the signature of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra, who is the Officer below the rank of the Inspector General of Police (Admn.), bihar, patna under whose signature the appointment letter was issued and the Competent Authority to conduct departmental inquiry is the Deputy Inspector General of Police, whose approval of charge memo in accordance with Rule 16 of Bihar Government Servant (CCA) Rules, 2005 read with Rule 825 of Bihar Police Manual by the appointing authority has not been taken having authorized by the state government in accordance with Rule 828 (b) and Rule 828 (d) of Bihar Police Manual. Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 43/48
34. In the above background, the judgment and order passed in LPA No.1571 of 2014 arising out of CWJC No.12013 of 2012 relied on behalf of the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts of the present case and is not therefore applicable. In the said case, the Court was considering the penalty order, which was not approved by the Director General of Police and the issue relating to the consideration of approval of the charge memo by the Competent Authority for conduct of the disciplinary proceeding was not involved in it.
35. The law in respect of approval of charge memo by the Competent Authority is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of B. V. Gopinath (supra) and applying of the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the said case and reiterated in the case of Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2012 (11) SCC 565.
wherein Paragraph No.17, inter alia, the Apex Court has held as follows :
"17. Even before us, no order of authorization in general or any rule permitting the competent authority to delegate its power for conducting the enquiry has been produced. Thus, in such a fact situation, it is neither desirable nor possible to deal with the issue, rather it is desirable that the issue be left open."
Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 44/48
36. The Apex Court faced with the different view in the other coordinate Bench in the case of Sunny Abraham V. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2021 (20) SCC 12 has in Paragraphs No.16 to 19 has clarified the law, which is inter alia as under :
"16. But this argument was repelled by the Coordinate Bench, as would be evident from the opinion of the Bench reflected in paras 49 and 50 of the Report, which reads :
(B.V. Gopinath case [Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 351 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 161] , SCC p.
369) "49. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General.
Initially, when the file comes to the Finance Minister, it is only to take a decision in principle as to whether departmental proceedings ought to be initiated against the officer. Clause (11) deals with reference to CVC for second stage advice. In case of proposal for major penalties, the decision is to be taken by the Finance Minister. Similarly, under clause (12) reconsideration of CVC's second stage advice is to be taken by the Finance Minister. All further proceedings including approval for referring the case to DoP&T, issuance of show-cause notice in case of disagreement with the enquiry officer's report; tentative decision after CVC's second stage advice on imposition of penalty;
final decision of penalty and revision/review/memorial have to be taken by the Finance Minister.
50. In our opinion, the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court has correctly interpreted the provisions of Office Order No. 205 of 2005. Factually also, a perusal of the record would show that the file was put up to the Finance Minister by the Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance) seeking the approval of the Finance Minister for sanctioning prosecution against one officer and for initiation of major penalty proceeding under Rules 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(c) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules against the officers mentioned in the note which included the Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 45/48 respondent herein. Ultimately, it appears that the charge memo was not put up for approval by the Finance Minister. Therefore, it would not be possible to accept the submission of Ms Indira Jaising that the approval granted by the Finance Minister for initiation of departmental proceedings would also amount to approval of the charge memo.
(emphasis in original)
17. We are conscious of the fact that the allegations against the appellant are serious in nature and ought not to be scuttled on purely technical ground. But the Tribunal in the judgment which was set aside by the High Court had reserved liberty to issue a fresh memorandum of charges under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as per Rules laid down in the matter, if so advised. Thus, the department's power to pursue the matter has been reserved and not foreclosed.
18. For these reasons we set aside the judgment [Union of India v. Sunny Abraham, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12879] of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal delivered on 20-4-2015 in Sunny Abraham v. Union of India [Sunny Abraham v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine CAT 3067] subject to certain modification on operational part of it, which we express in the next paragraph of this judgment.
19. Considering the fact that the proceeding against the appellant relates to an incident which is alleged to have taken place in the year 1998 and the proceeding was initiated in the year 2002, we direct that in the event the department wants to continue with the matter, and on producing the material the disciplinary authority is satisfied that a fresh charge memorandum ought to be issued, such charge memorandum shall be issued not beyond a period of two months, and thereafter the proceeding shall take its own course."
37. Upon scrutiny of the charge memo served to the petitioner and the records of the case, it appears that the charge-memo having not been approved by the Director General of Police, who is the competent Authority and the State having not delegated to the D.I.G., Saran Range, Chapra, who has Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 46/48 served the charge memo to the petitioner in want of approval permitting conduct of the departmental proceeding is against the mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the prescribed Rules of the Bihar Police Manual and in accordance with Rule 16 of Bihar Government Servant (CCA) Rules, 2005.
The charge memo under the signature of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra is vitiated in the eye of law.
38. Further, the Apex Court in case of Chairman-
Cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. and Others Vs. Ananta Saha and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142 held that "the charge memo cannot be issued in a casual or routine manner and the disciplinary authority is required to apply his mind before its issuance. In the aforesaid case the legal maxim sub lato fundamento cadit opus" has been referred and it was held that, where initial action is not in consonance with law subsequent proceeding would not sanctify the same.
39. As a consequence of, the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding without approval of the charge memo, which is the foundation of initiation of departmental proceeding having held to be without authority of law. The entire disciplinary proceeding including the penalty order dated Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 47/48 02.11.2022 contained in Memo No.668 issued by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna is hereby quashed and set aside.
40. The writ petition is of the year 2023 and the review has been filed in the year 2024 and it has been informed that the petitioner after having faced the consequences of the penalty order, his service record has been found to be in satisfaction of the controlling officer and it has been informed that petitioner is superannuating very soon, in peculiar facts of the case, when I have already quashed and set aside the entire disciplinary proceeding, I don't find to remit the matter back to the concerned authority to reconsider from the stage of charge memo. In this regard, I find it apt to inter alia reproduce the observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph no. 8 in the case of Allahabad Bank & Ors. vs. Krishna Narayan Tewary reported in (2017) 2 SCC 308:
"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."
41. With the above observation/direction, the Patna High Court C. REV. No.366 of 2024 dt.13-02-2026 48/48 present review application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J) chn/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 25.02.2026 Transmission Date NA.