Patna High Court
Amarendra Kumar Aman vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 28 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24348 of 2013
======================================================
Amarendra Kumar Aman S/O Late Daroga Chaudhary Resident Of Village-
Ibrahimpur, P.O. and P.S.- Kachhawan, Distt.- Rohtas Presently Posted As
Superintending Engineer, Western Koshi Canal Circle No. 2 Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna
2. Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar,
Sinchai Bhawan, Patna
3. Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar,
Sinchai Bhawan, Patna
4. Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Sinchai
Bhawan, Patna
5. Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar,
Sinchai Bhawan, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Advocate
Mr. Surendra Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Rachna Shukla, Advocate
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, G.P.16
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, A.C. to G.P.16
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-04-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:
"(i) For quashing and setting aside the
notification no. 1465 dated 25.11.2011 issued under
the signature of Sri Bharat Jha, Deputy Secretary,
Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar
to the extent it relates to punishment no. 1 to 3
whereby and where under ignoring all the rules and
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
2/19
regulations order of punishments have been passed
against the petitioner without application of mind as
such the same is fit to be rejected by this Hon'ble
Court.
(ii) For quashing and setting aside the
Notification No. 981 dated 16.08.2013 of the Water
Resources Department, Government of Bihar issued
under the signature of Special Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Government of Bihar
whereby and where under appeal of the petitioner
dated 06.01.2012 annexure- filed before the Hon'ble
Governor has been rejected without application of
mind, ignoring all the rules regulations mechanically
in routine manner as such the impugned order is fit to
be rejected.
(iii) For direction to the respondents
authorities concerned to grant and pay all the
consequential benefits to the petitioner treating his
suspension period as on duty period.
(iv) For direction to the respondents
authorities to grant any such other relief or releifs for
which the petitioner is found legally entitled."
3. The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ
petition, are that the petitioner was appointed vide Notification
No.2323, dated 19.05.1987, on the post of Assistant Engineer in
the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
and gave his joining on 02.07.1987. Subsequently, he was given
the charge of the Superintending Engineer in the year 2004 and
later on the same was confirmed on 01.01.2009. While the
petitioner was posted as the Superintending Engineer, Water
Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026
3/19
Ways Circle, Gaya, he was put under suspension and his
Headquarter was fixed in the office of the Chief Engineer, Water
Resources Department, Patna vide Notification No.223, dated
01.04.2009. The petitioner was issued show-cause notice, with regard to certain allegations, which he duly replied to the authority concerned on 16.06.2009, wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him. Vide Memo No.589, dated 29.06.2009, issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary to the Government (Water Resources Department), Government of Bihar, Patna, the memo of charge was issued to the petitioner and simultaneously the Conducting Officer and Presenting Officer were also appointed. Altogether three charges were levelled against the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.17686 of 2009 for quashing the Notification No.223, dated 01.04.2009, whereby the petitioner was put under suspension and resolution issued vide Memo No.589, dated 29.06.2009, whereby decision to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner was taken. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 26.02.2010 by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for revocation of his suspension in accordance Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 4/19 with law. The departmental enquiry was conducted, wherein the petitioner participated and after conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report vide Letter No.866, dated 22.02.2011, before the disciplinary authority. Second show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Letter No.786, dated 04.07.2011 and along with the second show-cause notice, the enquiry report was also provided to the petitioner. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted his reply to the second show-cause notice on 04.08.2011, wherein a request was made by the petitioner, to the disciplinary authority to exonerate him from all the charges levelled against him. However, the disciplinary authority vide the impugned order contained in Memo No.1465 dated 25.11.2011, proceeded to award punishment of censure for the year 2008-2009, reduction to a lower stage in time-scale of pay and stoppage of annual increments for five years with cumulative effect. It was further ordered that apart from subsistence allowance, which was paid to the petitioner during the period under suspension, no other amount will be paid to the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.11.2011, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority on 06.01.2012. Since the authorities were not deciding the appeal preferred by the Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 5/19 petitioner, he again approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.48 of 2013, however vide order dated 04.01.2013, the writ petition was withdrawn with a liberty to pursue the matter before the appellate authority. Subsequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected and the same was communicated vide Memo No.981, dated 16.08.2013, passed by the Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted in complete violation of the provisions contained in Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 inasmuch as that from perusal of the memo of charge itself, it would appear that no document was mentioned to be relied upon by the prosecution during course of enquiry and similarly no list of witnesses were provided to the petitioner, whom the department intended to produce during course of enquiry for their evidences to prove the charge. Even the Enquiry Officer travelled beyond the documents which were said to have been submitted by the Presenting Officer, inasmuch as that he considered the documents relating to other person, against whom also a departmental proceeding was going on, which is not permissible, since the petitioner was never ever given any opportunity to go Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 6/19 through the document or the said document was never provided to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the so called documents which have been said to have been produced during course of enquiry were not proved by any of the witnesses, including their respective authors. Further, he submits that from the entire order sheet of the departmental proceeding, it would transpire that no proceeding was held during entire enquiry, since the Enquiry Officer kept on adjourning the matter for providing the relevant documents to the petitioner and direction was being issued to the Presenting Officer to bring on record the documents or to provide the said documents to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the entire departmental proceeding has been conducted in complete violation of the provisions contained in Rule 17(3) (4) and (14) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. He further submits that even the provisions contained in Rule 18(7) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules was not followed by the Enquiry Officer during course of the enquiry. Further, since no witnesses were examined during course of the enquiry, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to rebut the charges and even the documents which were asked for by the petitioner, were never Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 7/19 provided to him. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer only on his own presumption, proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of charge no.1, which he found to be proved and with regard to charge no.2, he found the same to be partially proved. With regard to charge no.3, the Enquiry Officer gave benefit of doubt to the petitioner and held the same to be not proved. It is also submitted that the disciplinary authority, while imposing punishment of non-payment of salary for the suspension period, was required to issue show-cause in terms of Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code, however no such notices were issued to the petitioner and the order of stoppage of salary for the said period, is in complete violation of Rule 11(5) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 read with 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and relies upon a judgment of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.02.2024, passed in C.W.J.C. No.1380 of 2020 (Ravi Ranjan Vs. Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank & Ors.), wherein in paragraph no.14, it has been held as follows:
"14. It is one of the fundamental points of the service jurisprudence that opportunity to defend must be granted to the delinquent on the charges alleged against him. Here in the present case, in view of the Court, the delinquent had demanded the documents to defend him from the charges alleged, consistently, but those documents have not been Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 8/19 provided instead the bank has provided, only one document and taken a plea before this Court by way of filing affidavit that no specific document was demanded by the petitioner, which is apparently wrong upon perusal of Annexure -3 as well as paragraph 14 of the rejoinder of the counter affidavit. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Rajit Singh reported in 2022(2) PLJR (SC) 196, relevant paragraph 8 -10 is quoted as under :-
"(8.) It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal also observed that the enquiry proceedings were against the principles of natural justice in as much as the documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. As per the settled proposition of law, in a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and the matter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of principles of natural justice is noticed and the enquiry has to be proceeded further after furnishing the necessary documents mentioned in the charge sheet, which are alleged to have not been given to the delinquent officer in the instant case. In the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, which was Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 9/19 also pressed into service on behalf of the appellants before the High Court, it is observed in paragraph 16 as under:-
"16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727], Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for Girls [(2002) 10 SCC 293], U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264] and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC 30])."
(9.) From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that when the aforesaid submission and the aforesaid decision was pressed into service, the High Court has not considered the same on the ground that the other officers involved in respect of the same incident are exonerated and/or no action is taken against them. Applying the law laid down in the case of A. Masilamani (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal as well as the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated. Therefore, the order Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 10/19 passed by the High Court in not allowing further proceedings from the stage it stood vitiated, i.e., after the issuance of the charge sheet, is unsustainable.
(10.) In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the findings recorded by the Tribunal as well as the High Court quashing and setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by applying the Doctrine of Equality is hereby quashed and set aside. However, as the enquiry is found to be vitiated and is found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as it is alleged that the relevant documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not supplied to the delinquent officer, we remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated, i.e., after the issuance of the charge sheet and to proceed further with the enquiry after furnishing all the necessary documents mentioned in the charge sheet and after following due principles of natural justice. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from today."
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to and relies upon a judgment of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 04.05.2015, passed in C.W.J.C. No.16214 of 2006 (Jai Narayan Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), wherein the learned Co-ordinate Bench has recorded as follows:
"I have considered the rival submissions Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 11/19 of the parties. I would first deal with the submission of the parties on infliction of punishment contained in item (ii) i.e. non-payment of pay/allowance for the period the petitioner remained under suspension (2.9.1999 to 2.9.2001) save and except the subsistence allowance. The Bihar Service Code is the substantive law which deals with different aspects of the service conditions of an employee of the Government whereas Rules 2005 provides the procedure for initiation, continuance and imposition of punishment. Rule 97(3) of the Code reads as under:
'97(3) In other cases, the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and allowances as such competent authority may prescribe:
Provided that the payment of allowance under clause (2) or clause (3) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowance are admissible."
Mr. Prakash has cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Prasad versus The State of Bihar (2006 (4) PLJR 514) wherein this Court while dealing with the fascicules of provision contained in Rule 97 of the Code and finding support from 2003 (4) PLJR 68 in paragraph 10 of the report held as under:-
"10. Admittedly, it appears from the materials on record and also from the record produced before us by the State Counsel that no such opportunity was given to the petitioner in terms of Rule 97(3) of the Code. A Bench of this court while considering this question in the case of Pramod Kumar vs. The Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors. reported in 2003(4) PLJR 68 relying upon a decision of this court rendered in the case of Mahabir Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 1988 PLJR 82, held that non-observance of the provisions of Rule 97(3) of the Code would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. The orders impugned on these scores, appear to be violative of the principles of natural justice as Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 12/19 referred to above."
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to and relies on a judgment of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 23.11.2017, passed in C.W.J.C. No.8589 of 2014 (Ram Tawakal Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), wherein the learned Co-ordinate Bench proceeded to held as follows:
"Having heard the submission of both sides, the sole question arises for consideration as to whether the report of the Inquiry Officer without being produced any evidence by the Presenting Officer as required under sub-rule(14) of Rule 17, on perusal of the records not brought on record in accordance with law is legal and any punishment can be inflicted on such report?
It is important to reproduce sub-rule (14) of Rule 17 which is as follows:
"(14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority.
The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the government servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter, without the leave of the inquiring authority. Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 13/19 The inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses, as it thinks fit."
From bare perusal of sub-rule(14) and different sub-rules of Rule 17, it is crystal clear that the legislature has prescribed the procedures for holding departmental inquiry in the prescribed manner. It is needless to say that violations of the procedure meant for holding departmental proceeding amounts to violation of natural justice and if inquiry is held in contravention of any provisions of Rule 17 meant for holding departmental inquiry, the inquiry report as well as the punishment thereon shall be vitiated. It is evident that the proceeding was initiated on the basis of the inquiry report of Technical Committee of the Vigilance Department. The petitioner was served with the article of charge containing six charges on the basis of the inquiry report of the Technical Committee. The petitioner submitted his detailed show cause but the disciplinary authority did not satisfy with the show cause of the petitioner and ordered for initiation of a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The disciplinary authority appointed Additional Inquiry Commissioner to hold the inquiry. The inquiry report(Annexure-5) shows that the Inquiry Officer considered the show cause and the submissions of the Presenting Officer but it does not appear that the Presenting Officer during the course of inquiry brought on record any documentary evidence in accordance with law as required under sub-rule(14) of Rule 17. The Presenting officer is bound to bring on any document in accordance with law and that should have been marked as exhibit. Without bringing the documents on record in accordance with law, the same cannot be treated as legal evidence. It further Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 14/19 appears that the Presenting Officer did not even examine the member of the Committee who held preliminary inquiry on the basis of which the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the pension Rules was initiated against the petitioner. Unless the author of the report is examined and petitioner was allowed to cross-examine, the author of the report on the basis of which the proceeding was initiated, the finding of the Inquiry Officer with regard to guilt and punishment on such report by the disciplinary authority in my view is absolutely illegal and not sustainable."
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to and relies on a judgment of this Court dated 12.02.2026, passed in C.W.J.C. No.565 of 2023 (Shashi Kala Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), wherein in paragraph nos. 24 and 25, it has been held as follows:
"24. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that memo of charge was issued to the petitioner wherein certain charges were levelled against the petitioner, but no list of witnesses or the documents to be relied upon by the department were mentioned therein, which is in violation of the provisions contained in Rule 17(3) and (4) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The same has prejudiced the case of the petitioner since he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and the documents which were relied upon by the respondent authorities and in absence thereof, the authorities proceeded to prove the charges on their own. Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 15/19
25. The Inquiry Officer, during course of inquiry, did not give his specific finding to the charges levelled against the petitioner and proceeded to submit his inquiry report wherein he found the charges to be proved against the petitioner only on the basis of the allegations levelled by the Presenting Officer and recommended for action to be taken against the petitioner."
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents-State submits that while the petitioner was posted as Superintending Engineer in the Water Ways Circle, Gaya, he committed certain irregularities in raising and strengthening work of Zamindari Bandh from Danu Bigha to Kachnawan Sabdalpur under Makhdumpur block of Jehanabad district for which an enquiry was done by the Technical Examination Cell of the Vigilance Department of the Government of Bihar and based on the report submitted by the department, the petitioner was put under suspension vide Notification No.223, dated 01.04.2009. The departmental proceeding was initiated against him in terms of Rule 17 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. The petitioner duly participated in the departmental proceeding and submitted his written defence before the Enquiry Officer. He was also given an opportunity to participate in the proceeding and he was also given an opportunity of hearing. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 16/19 enquiry report wherein he found the charge no.1 to be proved, charge no.2 to be partially proved and charge no.3 to be not proved by giving benefit of doubt to the petitioner. The enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer was considered at the level of the government and based on the said consideration, second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which he duly replied. The disciplinary authority, after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, proceeded to award punishment against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority, though the said appeal was not maintainable under Rule 24(2) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005, however the appeal/representation of the petitioner was treated to be review petition and the authority concerned after duly considering each and every aspect, with regard to each and every charge proceeded to reject the appeal/review filed by the petitioner vide order dated 16.08.2013. Appropriate punishment has been awarded to the petitioner for the charges, which have been found to be duly proved by the Enquiry Officer, during course of enquiry and the principles of natural justice has also been followed, while awarding the punishment to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State further submits that the petitioner never asked for Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 17/19 supply of the copy of certain relevant documents/register, however the said documents were duly examined during course of enquiry and this fact would be evident from paragraph 28 of the enquiry report. He submits that all due procedure was followed by the authorities concerned while passing the impugned order of punishment.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that memo of charge was issued to the petitioner, however the same does not contain any list of documents, except Letter No.5390, dated 15.09.2008 of the Vigilance Department and no list of witnesses was mentioned, along with the memo of charge, which is in complete violation of the provisions contained in Rule 17(3) (4) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Since no list of witnesses was mentioned with the memo of charge, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution during course of the departmental enquiry and even the document which is mentioned with the memo of charge, was not proved by its author during course of enquiry. Further, since no witnesses were examined during course of enquiry, there is no question of giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness, which is in violation of the provisions contained in Rules 17 (14) of the Bihar C.C.A. Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 18/19 Rules, 2005. Further, while passing the order of punishment, with regard to non-payment of any amount, except what has been paid to the petitioner, during the period under suspension, the disciplinary authority did not bother to issue notice to the petitioner in terms of Rule 11(5) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 and Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code. It further appears that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted in complete violation of the provisions contained in Bihar Service Code and Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005.
12. From the considerations made above, this Court has not option but to set aside the order contained in Memo No.1465, dated 25.11.2011, issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and the order contained in Memo No.981, dated 16.08.2013, issued under the signature of the Special Secretary to the Government, Government of Bihar, Patna. Since, the petitioner has already superannuated from service on 31.03.2022, there is no justification in remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority for proceeding afresh in the matter. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for all the increments which he would have been entitled, prior to passing of the impugned order dated 25.11.2011. He will further be entitled Patna High Court CWJC No.24348 of 2013 dt.28-04-2026 19/19 for payment of entire salary for the period during which he was under suspension. The entire exercise must be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of the order. The respondent authorities are directed to re- examine the entitlement of the petitioner and to pay the consequential benefits, including the pensionary benefits, if any, to the petitioner within the said period of four months.
13. The writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.) Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.05.2026 Transmission Date NA