IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6742 of 2019

======================================================

Bachchu Prasad Singh Son of Late Lakhmi Mandal Resident of

Village/Mohalla-Akhatwara, P.O.-Bhataura, P.S.-Hathauri, District-Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and

Fisheries Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Resources Department,

Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.Director, Dairy Development Directorate under Animal Husbandry and

Fisheries Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4.Dairy Research Officer, Bihar, Patna.

5.Deputy Director, Head Office cum Inquiry Officer, Dairy Development

Directorate, Bihar, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Manu Tripurari

Mr. Apurv Harsh

Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap

Ms. Jaya Singh

Ms. Tanu Priya

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Birendra Prasad Singh (AC to SC-19)

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 18-08-2026

1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the State respondents.

2.The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner seeking

interalia for the relief of quashing of the punishment order dated 20.01.2017,

whereby and whereunder, two increments with cumulative effect of the Petitioner

were withheld and the punishment was entered in his service record (Annexure – 7 to

the writ petition). The punishment had been imposed upon him in connection with

the theft of departmental vehicle bearing Registration No. BR01PA-2353. The

Petitioner in the instant case has also assailed the appellate order dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

2/15

30/07/2018 which has been passed vide Memo No. 50, whereby and

whereunder the earlier punishment imposed vide order dated 20.01.2017,

was reduced to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect (Annexure –

9 to the writ petition).

3.Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he was appointed as

a Driver on 19.09.1989, and was thereafter posted in the Dairy

Development Department. At the relevant time, he was attached with the

Dairy Research Officer, Bihar, Patna and was driving departmental vehicle

bearing Registration No. BR-01PA-2353.

4. According to the petitioner, he took the official vehicle to

Muzaffarpur on 25.06.2016, according to the direction given by his

superior officer i.e. the Dairy Research Officer, who was required to attend

the marriage of his son. The official vehicle was parked at the place

indicated as by the officer. On 28.06.2016, the official vehicle was found

stolen and an FIR was lodged on 29.06.2016 (Annexure -1 to this writ

petition).

5.Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order

number 22 dated 04.07.2016 (Annexure -3 to this writ petition). It is

further submitted that the police investigation subsequently, culminated in

submission of final form bearing Final Form No. 835/2016 dated

30.11.2016 (Annexure -2 to this writ petition). The FIR, final form and

suspension order have been brought on record as Annexures- 1, 2 and 3 to

the writ petition respectively.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

3/15

6.Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the

petitioner. A show cause notice was issued and an enquiry was conducted

by the Enquiry Officer. It is the submission of the Petitioner that the

enquiry report did not establish any specific act of negligence on his part.

However, by order dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure-7 to this writ petition), the

disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withholding two

increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the

petitioner preferred an appeal and consequently, the appellate authority

vide order dated 30-07-2018 (Annexure-9 to this writ petition), modified

the punishment order dated 20.01.2017, by reducing it to withholding of

one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner thereafter, has

approached this Hon’ble Court, assailing the punishment orders on the

ground that the same had been passed materials which are untenable and

are not legally sustainable, and that the finding of negligence was contrary

to the materials available on record.

7.Per contra, the Learned State Counsel for the State submits that the

petitioner was entrusted with the departmental vehicle and that the vehicle

was stolen while it was in his custody. It is contended that the petitioner

was responsible for the vehicle and his conduct amounted to negligence. It

is further submitted that the appellate authority had already considered the

grievance of the Petitioner and reduced the punishment from withholding

of two increments to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

4/15

The respondents have also relied upon the settled principle that this Court,

while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not

ordinarily act as an appellate authority over departmental findings or re-

appreciate evidence merely because another view is possible.

8.Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that

the petitioner had been serving as a driver since 19.09.1989, and had an

unblemished service record for nearly 27 years. It is submitted that the

vehicle was taken to Muzaffarpur pursuant to the direction of the superior

officer and not for any personal purpose of the petitioner. The vehicle was

stolen and the petitioner himself lodged the FIR, immediately thereafter,

and the police investigation culminated in submission of final form.

9.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no specific

evidence showing as to what particular negligent act was committed by the

petitioner and that mere theft of the departmental vehicle cannot

automatically establish misconduct or negligence. It has further been

submitted on behalf of the petitioner, in the rejoinder that, he had

specifically stated that he parked the vehicle at the place indicated by the

superior officer and went to sleep only on the direction of the said officer.

10.The petitioner has also brought on record a subsequent development

concerning the Dairy Research Officer, Anmol Kumar, who happens to be

the superior officer upon whose direction the Petitioner was acting. It is

stated that the department had also proceeded against him in disciplinary

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

5/15

proceedings in connection with the same alleged incident / cause of action.

According to the petitioner, the departmental proceeding against the said

officer was dropped and the senior officer was exonerated by order dated

12.08.2019, which has been brought on record as Annexure-10 to the writ

application. It is therefore, contended that maintaining punishment against

the petitioner, despite the subsequent dropping of proceedings against the

superior officer in respect of the same occurrence / cause of action, is

arbitrary and discriminatory.

11.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the

materials on record, the primary question for determination is whether the

finding of negligence recorded against the petitioner is supported by legally

sustainable material and whether the impugned orders suffer from

perversity, non-application of mind or arbitrariness warranting interference

under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12.There can be no dispute with the proposition that this Court,

exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not

ordinarily sit as an appellate authority over a departmental enquiry. The

principle was well articulated in Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of

Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10 wherein it was categorically laid down:

“6. It is no doubt that the High Court under Article 226 or this

Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the findings

recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

6/15

or the enquiry officer as a matter of course. The Court cannot sit

in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the appellate

authority. But this does not mean that in no circumstance can the

Court interfere. The power of judicial review available to the

High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution takes in

its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with the

conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support

the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have

been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were

perverse or made at the dictates of the superior authority.

7. In Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar(1978) 3 SCC 366 it

was held that the disciplinary proceedings before a domestic

tribunal are of quasi-judicial character and, therefore, it is

necessary that the Tribunal should arrive at its conclusions on the

basis of some evidence, that is to say, such evidence which and

that too, with some degree of definiteness, points to the guilt of the

delinquent and does not leave the matter in a suspicious state as

mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof even in domestic

enquiries. If, therefore, there is no evidence to sustain the charges

framed against the delinquent, he cannot be held to be guilty as in

that event, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer would be

perverse.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

7/15

8. The findings recorded in a domestic enquiry can be

characterized as perverse if it is shown that such findings are not

supported by any evidence on record or are not based on the

evidence adduced by the parties or no reasonable person could

have come to those findings on the basis of that evidence. This

principle was laid down by this Court in State of A.P. v. Rama

Rao (1964) 2 LLJ150 in which the question was whether the High

Court under Article 226 could interfere with the findings recorded

at the departmental enquiry. This decision was followed in

Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Jain (1969) 2 LLJ

377 and Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel

(1976)1 SCC 518. In Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn.

(1984) 4 SCC 635 it was laid down that where the findings of

misconduct are based on no legal evidence and the conclusion is

one to which no reasonable man could come, the findings can be

rejected as perverse. It was also laid down that where a quasi-

judicial tribunal records that findings based on no legal evidence

or such as no reasonable person could reach are liable to be

interfered with as perverse.

10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between

the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a

decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

8/15

thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon

it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on

record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon,

howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be

treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered

with.”

13. In view of the aforesaid judicial precedent, this Court is of the view that if

a decision is arrived in a departmental proceeding, is based on no evidence or

evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act

upon it, such order shall be treated to be perverse. Such order which are prima

facie perverse can be interfered with, by a writ court. Applying the aforesaid

principles to the facts of the case at hand, this Court finds that the impugned

orders cannot be sustained.

14. Upon scrupulously going through the records, it transpires that the charge

against the petitioner essentially rests upon the allegation that the departmental

vehicle was stolen while it was under his custody and that such occurrence was

attributable to his negligence. At this juncture, this court finds it imperative to

reiterate the principle of vicarious liability here.

15.It is witnessed that the subsequent order dated 12.08.2019, whereby the

departmental proceeding against the Dairy Research Officer, Anmol Kumar,

arising out of the same occurrence was dropped and he was exonerated. The

primary charges framed against Shri Anmol Kumar (Cattle Research Officer,

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

9/15

Bihar, Patna) was of unauthorized vehicle use and procedural non-compliance,

demonstrating arbitrary behavior and failing in standard duties by disregarding

the Bihar Government Servants’ Conduct Rules. An inquiry was conducted, and it

was concluded that taking the vehicle out of headquarters without prior notice

was not proven to be malicious, as Mr. Kumar had applied for casual leave

(which was approved by competent authorities) citing an urgent personal visit to

Muzaffarpur. An insurance settlement claim of 2,03,190/- was also successfully

₹

recovered and deposited back into the government treasury via demand

draft/challan, resulting in no financial loss to the public exchequer.

Since the main allegations of unapproved absence were disproved and the

financial cost was fully compensated, the government decided to exonerate Shri

Anmol Kumar and officially close the departmental proceedings against him.

16.The charges levelled against the Senior Officer were different from that of

the charges levelled against the petitioner. However, it is expedient to state that

the Petitioner herein, was acting upon the direction of the said Superior Officer.

By applying the principle of vicarious liability and the Latin maxim “respondeat

superior” which means to let the master answer, categorically makes an

employer liable for all acts of the employee. In light of the aforesaid principles of

law, the Senior Officer should have also faced the same charges as that which was

imposed upon the Petitioner.

17. Exonerating the Superior Officer, while punishing the subordinate officer,

in the present case, the Petitioner, is legally unsustainable because it penalizes a

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

10/15

subordinate for executing the direct commands of a superior officer who

possessed sole operational control over the vehicle's movement. Under the

principles of vicarious liability, primary responsibility remains with the

controlling authority when a subordinate acts strictly under their supervision and

lacks independent volition. As established by the Supreme Court in

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra reported in AIR

1957 SC 264, the foundational test of an employment relationship is the master's

right to control not only what work is done, but the exact manner in which it is

executed. The relevant paragraph in this regard is,

“14. The prima facie test for the determination of the relationship

between master and servant is the existence of the right in the

master to supervise and control the work done by the servant not

only in the matter of directing what work the servant is to do but

also the manner in which he shall do his work..."

Because the petitioner took the official vehicle to Muzaffarpur, parked it, and

stayed overnight solely pursuant to explicit orders from the Dairy Research

Officer, Shri Anmol Kumar, the operational command remained entirely with the

superior. Holding the driver liable for negligence after the superior officer was

fully exonerated also, directly violates the Doctrine of Parity under Article 14 of

the Constitution, laid down in Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. reported in (2013)

3 SCC 73, which in paragraph 9 mandates equal treatment among co-delinquents

and forbids punishing a subordinate while clearing the primary decision-maker,

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

11/15

"9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed;

even among persons who are found guilty. Parity among co-

delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being

imposed. The Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment

which is disproportionate, i.e., lesser punishment for serious

offences and stringent punishment for lesser offence”

18. Consequently, penalizing the driver based on the mere fact of theft without

identifying any personal act of misconduct constitutes a perverse finding as

stipulated in Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police reported in (1999) 2

SCC 10, as no reasonable person could attribute sole culpability to an agent

executing lawful orders.

It is a relevant circumstance requiring consideration, particularly when the

specific defense of the Petitioner throughout has been that he was acting under

the directions of the said officer and was accompanying him in connection with

official duties. The respondents have not demonstrated from the impugned orders

that this aspect was meaningfully considered while determining the petitioner's

individual culpability. The disciplinary authority was required to determine

negligence on part of the Petitioner on the basis of evidence and not merely by

drawing an assumption from the fact of theft. The material placed before this

Court does not disclose any specific act of negligence attributable to the

petitioner which independently establishes misconduct. The consistent case of the

Petitioner is that he was driving the vehicle pursuant to the direction of his

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

12/15

superior officer, had accompanied the officer to Muzaffarpur and had parked the

vehicle at the place indicated by the officer.

19.The respondents have not been able to point out any specific material

establishing that the petitioner deliberately abandoned the vehicle, violated a

particular direction, left the vehicle at an unauthorized place on his own or

otherwise committed a defined act of negligence which directly resulted in the

theft. Mere theft of the vehicle while in the custody of the driver cannot, by itself,

constitute conclusive proof of negligence.

20. In addition to the absence of substantive evidence establishing negligence,

the departmental proceedings against the petitioner suffer from grave procedural

infirmities, as recorded in the appellate order itself (Annexure-9). The Inquiry

Officer failed to examine the primary controlling authority, the Dairy Research

Officer (Shri Anmol Kumar), whose testimony was indispensable under the rules

to verify whether the driver acted under explicit commands. Furthermore, the

Investigating Officer of Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 209/16 was never

summoned to explain the findings of the theft investigation. Instead of

independently evaluating the delinquent's defense, the Inquiry Officer blindly

accepted the Presenting Officer's statements and relied upon an unverified petrol

pump receipt that was never authenticated by the issuing entity. These omissions

demonstrate a complete failure to adhere to the procedure mandated by General

Administration Department Circular No. 9407 dated 02.07.2012 and Rules 18

and 19 of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005. Conducting a

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

13/15

departmental enquiry in violation of the principles of natural justice and relying

on unproved, unauthenticated material renders the finding of guilt perverse,

arbitrary, and legally unsustainable.

21.The appellate authority reduced the punishment to withholding of one

increment with cumulative effect. However, reduction of punishment does not

cure an infirmity in the underlying finding of guilt. The question before this Court

is not merely whether the punishment was excessive, but whether the finding that

the petitioner was negligent is itself supported and backed by evidence.

22.The appellate order principally proceeds on the basis of the petitioner's

alleged “carelessness attitude” but does not identify, with sufficient particularity,

the evidence establishing the precise negligent act committed by the petitioner. A

finding of guilt in a disciplinary proceeding cannot rest merely upon an inference

that because the vehicle was stolen, the driver must necessarily have been

negligent.

23.The petitioner himself lodged the FIR immediately after the vehicle was

stolen and the police investigation culminated in Final Form No. 835/2016 dated

30.11.2016. It is true that the standard applicable to a criminal investigation and

the standard applicable to a departmental proceeding are different and, therefore,

submission of a final form cannot by itself conclusively terminate departmental

liability.

24. Nevertheless, the final form is a relevant piece of surrounding material

and, where the departmental authorities rely upon the same occurrence to hold an

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

14/15

employee guilty of negligence, the disciplinary authority must independently

demonstrate the material on the basis of which the departmental charge stands

established. The impugned orders do not sufficiently identify such material.

25. The present case therefore, falls within the recognized exception to the rule

of limited judicial review. The fact that the vehicle was stolen is undisputed, but

the fact of theft and the fact of negligence are two distinct matters. The former

cannot automatically establish the latter. Further, the punishment order does not

adequately demonstrate why the petitioner's explanation was rejected or what

particular evidence established negligence on his part. The appellate authority,

while reducing the punishment, has also not supplied the missing foundation by

identifying the precise material establishing the charge. Thus, the defect is not

merely one relating to the quantum of punishment; it goes to the very foundation

of the disciplinary action.

26.The court is of the firm view that administrative action affecting service

rights must satisfy the requirements of fairness, non-arbitrariness and reasoned

decision-making under Article 14 of the Constitution. The withholding of an

increment with cumulative effect has continuing consequences upon the

petitioner's service benefits and pay. Such a consequence cannot be imposed

merely upon an assumption of negligence without adequate material. This Court

is conscious of the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and is

not re-appreciating the evidence merely because another view is possible. The

interference in the present case is warranted because the basic finding of

Patna High Court CWJC No.6742 of 2019 dt 18-08-2026

15/15

negligence is not demonstrated to be founded upon legally sustainable evidence

and the impugned orders proceed substantially upon the fact that the official

vehicle was stolen while in the petitioner's custody, without adequately

establishing the specific negligent act attributable to him.

27.In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court finds that the punishment imposed

upon the petitioner cannot be sustained. The punishment order dated

20.01.2017(Annexure -7 to this writ petition)., whereby the petitioner was

punished with withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, is hereby

quashed. Consequently, the appellate order dated 30-07-2018 (Annexure-9 to

this writ petition), whereby the punishment was modified/reduced to withholding

of one increment with cumulative effect, is also quashed.

28.The respondents are directed to restore the withheld increment and grant

the petitioner all consequential service benefits flowing from quashing of the

aforesaid punishment orders, including appropriate correction of his service

record and consequential monetary benefits, in accordance with law.

29.The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

30.There shall be no order to cost.

sanjeev/-

(Kumar Manish, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 11-08-2026

Uploading Date 18-08-2026

Transmission Date