Md. Naseem Ansari vs The State Of Bihar on 22 January, 2026
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the entire proceeding is absolutely defective and has been
passed in gross violation of the established law of the land. He
submits that the charge memo which is Annexure-4, has not
been issued in compliance of Rule 17(3) of the Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CCA Rules, 2005'). He
further submits that in the enquiry report neither the
complainant has been examined or cross-examined nor any
other material with regard to allegation against the petitioner
has been produced before the enquiry Officer. He further
submits that the Director, Agriculture Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna has directed to take action against the petitioner
who is not the competent authority as the petitioner belongs to
Group-B post and the Director also. Therefore, he submits that
the entire proceedings, which are conducted by the Director
being the Disciplinary Authority is bad-in-law. He relied on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5300 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
4/9
case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and
Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and in the case of Rajesh
Kumar Sharma Vs. the State of Bihar reported in 2023(1)
PLJR 511. He submits that in the present case there are gross
violation of Rule 17(3) of the CCA Rules, 2005 as neither any
material evidence nor any cross-examination took place without
which no charge can be proved against the petitioner. Violation
of Rule 18(3) has also been made. He further submits that the
Reviewing Authority has also not considered the points taken by
the delinquent and, hence, he submits that the entire proceeding
should be vitiated as it is bad-in-law. He submits that since
proceeding is bad-in-law, therefore, the petitioner be reinstated
in service with a direction for payment of all his arrears within a
fix period of time.