IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.996 of 2017

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

Vijay Kumar Sinha, son of late Ramashankar Prasad, resident of Panchwati

Colony, Bari Patan Devi Road, Alamganj, P.O.-Gulzarbagh, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the Director General-cum-Inspector General of

Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Old

Secretariat, Patna.

3. The Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Zone, Darbhanga.

4. The Deputy Inspector Genral of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani.

6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Head Quarter)-cum-Conducting

Officer, Madhubani.

7. Sri Arvind Jha, the then Police Inspector-cum-Officer-In-Charge, Town

Police Station, Madhubani.

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate

Ms. Vaishali, Advocate

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Rishik Singh Rajput, Advocate

Mr. Gyanendra Diwaker, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 03-09-2026

1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the State- respondents.

2. By way of this writ application the Petitioner interalia prays for the

following reliefs:

i.To set aside the appellate order dated 02/03.10.2016 (Annexure- 2),

communicated vide Memo No. 898 dated 03.10.2016, whereby and

whereunder the petitioner’s appeal dated 29.08.2014, against the

order of dismissal has been rejected;

ii.To quash the order of punishment dated 12.06.2014 (Darbhanga

Range Order No. 160/14 issued under Memo No. 813, Annexure- 47),

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

2/19

whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed

from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police;

iii.To hold the preliminary enquiry report dated 12.07.2011

(Annexure-38) submitted by Sri Arvind Kumar Jha,

Respondent No. 7, to be a table enquiry report and hence,

not fit to be relied upon;

iv.To hold the findings of the Conducting Officer recorded in

his report dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure-23), to be perverse

and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, Sri Vijay

Kumar Sinha, was at the relevant time posted as Station House Officer,

Lakhnaur Police Station, District Madhubani. On 08.07.2011, the Petitioner

was placed under suspension vide Darbhanga Range Order No. 263/2011

issued under Memo No. 1557 dated 08.07.2011, followed by District Order

No. 701/11 issued vide Memo No. 2274 dated 08.07.2011 (Annexures 5 &

6).

An FIR was thereafter lodged against the petitioner as

Lakhnaur P.S. Case No. 50/11 dated 16.07.2011 (Annexure-7), on

allegations concerning the escape of an accused, Md. Farukh, and

irregularities in the recovery/seizure of stolen property in connection with

Khar (Mumbai) P.S. Case No. 300/11.

4. It is further submitted that on 10.06.2012, a charge-sheet (Memo No.

1255, Annexure-8) containing five charges was framed, and the then,

Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Madhubani, was appointed as a

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

3/19

Conducting Officer, with a direction to complete the proceeding within

three months. The five charges, in substance, alleged that the petitioner:

(i)proceeded on leave without informing his superiors after

an accused fled during a joint raid with Mumbai Police;

(ii)secretly obtained recovery of stolen articles through Kamal

Sah and Probationer SI, Sanjeev Kumar Suman and

prepared a single, composite seizure list without informing

his superiors;

(iii)suppressed from the Mumbai Police team and the

informant, that further articles had been recovered and that

the accused was in custody;

(iv)failed to keep the accused in proper custody, resulting in

his disappearance from the police station during the

enquiry; and

(v)thereby had maligned the image of the Madhubani and

Bihar Police.

5. The suspension order was revoked only on 22.11.2012, by District

Order 1532/2012 followed by District Order No. 1591/2012 dated

06.12.2012 in compliance to the order dated 09.07.2012 passed in CWJC

No. 10244 of 2012.

Significantly, the Supervisory Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional

Police Officer, Jhanjharpur, in his supervision note dated 28.09.2013

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

4/19

having Memo No. 860/Sub (Annexure-12), himself recorded that during

investigation, it transpired that the allegations against the petitioner were

not found correct in connection with Lakhnaur P.S. Case No. 50/11.

6. It is further contended by the counsel for the Petitioner, that

immediately on receipt of the charge-sheet, the Petitioner, by petition dated

20.06.2012, sought copies of the defense documents to file an effective

written statement.

This was followed by reminders dated 10.07.2012, 10.08.2012,

25.08.2012, 03.09.2012 and 10.09.2012 (Annexures 13 to 18).

Notwithstanding the same, on 10.07.2012 itself before the Petitioner was

allowed to file his preliminary written statement the Conducting Officer

commenced recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, in violation

of Para 12 of Appendix-49 of the Police Manual and Rule 7(d) of Police

Order No. 109 (Annexures 21 & 22).

7. The Petitioner filed his preliminary written statement on 18.09.2012 and

his final written statement on 10.10.2012 (Annexures 19 & 20), expressly

under protest and reserving his objections. The Conducting Officer

nevertheless submitted his report on 11.10.2012 (Annexure-23) holding

Charges 2 to 5 proved, while Charge No. 1 was held not proved.

8. It is submitted by the counsel for the Petitioner that, the Conducting

Officer himself examined five witnesses in support of the charges and, of

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

5/19

the witnesses so examined, the Petitioner was accorded with an opportunity

to cross examine only one witness, namely, Respondent No. 7, Sri Arvind

Kumar Jha. Further the report dated 11.10.2012, and the order of

punishment, rests substantially on documents that were never exhibited in

the enquiry nor supplied to the petitioner, despite specific and repeated

demand.

9. It is further contended that from the perusal of enquiry report dated

11.10.2012, which is marked as Annexure 23 to the writ petition, that there

was no Presenting Officer, when the Petitioner was proceeded

departmentally. The conducting officer himself had assumed that charge

of the presenting officer and had found charges 2 to 5 to be proved against

the Petitioner.

It has been stated that one Sanjeev Kumar Suman, the then

Sub-Inspector was also posted at the Lakhnour Police Station at the

relevant time and was also subjected to departmental proceeding for the

same incident and Vide order dated 01.09.2014 he was dismissed from the

post of Sub-Inspector, against which an appeal was preferred and the same

was dismissed.

Assailing both the orders, Sanjeev Kumar Suman, had moved

before this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 7986 of 2015. The said writ

application was allowed and the order of his dismissal was set aside vide

order dated 08.03.2021.

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

6/19

10. The counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the unreliability of

the preliminary report dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure-38), which contained

the statements made by Respondent No. 7, stands independently exposed

by his own answers in cross-examination recorded on 30.09.2012

(Annexure-42).

11. It is further submitted that Sri Karm Lal, SDPO Sadar, Madhubani, in

his own statement dated 10.07.2012, before the Conducting Officer, stated

that he had merely forwarded the report of Respondent No. 7 vide his

Memo No. 806/Sadar dated 12.07.2011, and had conducted no independent

enquiry of his own (Annexures 36 & 37), notwithstanding which the

disciplinary authority, at sub-para 9 of the impugned punishment order,

purported to place reliance on an "enquiry report of the SDPO Sadar,

Madhubani" that was never in fact prepared, exhibited, or supplied.

12. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the respondents, in the counter

affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 6, has pleaded that the

Petitioner was posted at Lakhnour as SHO and he did not properly conduct

his duty and also did not properly assist the Mumbai Police in Khar P.S.

Case No. 300/2011.

The stolen article was recovered but was not informed by him

to Khar Police or any other officer superior to him in the same police

station. In the departmental proceeding, he was found guilty and was

therefore, awarded with the punishment.

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

7/19

13. The counsel for the state respondent further submits that the

Superintendent of Police, Madhubani, found the case true in Lakhnour P.S.

Case No. 50/2011 under the offences of Indian Penal Code, 1860, against

seven accused persons including the Petitioner.

The fact that the report of conducting officer was not enclosed, is

vehemently disputed. The Petitioner also took leave for four days and left

on 22.04.2011, without informing the senior officials. The Petitioner

returned on 26.06.2011 and enquired one Kamal Sah and directed him to

be present with Raju @ Lal Sah, at the police station.

When the said persons were present at the police station, it was

informed to the Petitioner that the stolen articles were handed over to the

then PSI near the bank of Kamla River, and some article was given to a

person named Md. Farooq, who was raided and the remaining articles was

also recovered by the then PSI. However, the seizure list was prepared in

one seizure list although the recovery of articles was done from two

different places.

The Petitioner included the article which was returned by the then

PSI in one seizure list. The Petitioner called Md. Farooq and kept him in

custody, the fact which was concealed by him. It is further contended that

the informant informed that the recovered articles was less than the actual

articles stolen. Furthermore, it has been contended, that the accused,

namely, Md. Farooq fled away from custody with the aid of the Petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

8/19

Consequent to which the Petitioner was suspended from service vide

Darbhanga Area Order No. 263/2011 dated 08.07.2011.

14. The counsel for the Respondent State further submits that the

departmental proceeding had been conducted in compliance to the

procedure outlined in law and that there is no infirmity in the dismissal

order as well as appellate order.

It is submitted that from perusal of the allegation against the

Petitioner, exhibits, statement of witnesses and opinion of the Enquiry

Officer of the Departmental Proceeding, there exists no evidence to

disagree with the order of dismissal from service.

It is submitted that no Presenting Officer is mandated under the

Police Manual for a proceeding of this nature and the documents relied

upon were either supplied or were not germane, hence, the appeal was

rightly considered and rejected on the ground that identical allegations had

culminated in a charge-sheet in Lakhnaur P.S. Case No. 50/11.

15. It is further not disputed that this Court, in C.W.J.C. No. 109 of 2015,

vide order dated 23.08.2016, had already once quashed the earlier

Appellate rejection and directed the Appellate Authority to hear the

Petitioner afresh, with a specific direction that the petitioner should appear

before the Zonal IG of Police, Darbhanga Range, on 06.09.2016.

The petitioner did so appear, was told that a date of hearing would

be communicated. None was in his representation dated 22.09.2016, for

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

9/19

fixation of a date went unanswered and the appeal came to be rejected vide

Memo No. 898 dated 03.10.2016 without any hearing at all in the very

teeth of this Court's earlier direction.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, principally, on the

decision rendered in Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, (Civil

Appeal No. 2608 of 2012, decided on 02.07.2018) reported in AIR 2018

SC 4860, where the Supreme Court, examining the effect of non-

appointment of a Presenting Officer, held that "if the Inquiry Officer starts

acting in any other capacity and proceeds to act in a manner as if he is

interested in eliciting evidence to punish an employee, the principle of bias

would come into play."

The Court further reiterated the settled position that if the Inquiring

Authority plays the role of a prosecutor and cross-examines defense

witnesses or puts leading questions to the prosecution witnesses, clearly

exposing a biased state of mind, the inquiry would be opposed to the

principles of natural justice, though mere non-appointment of a Presenting

Officer, does not by itself vitiate an enquiry unless prejudice is shown.

17. The aforesaid case also cites, that a Constitution Bench of this Court

has elaborately considered and explained the principles of natural justice in

A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India reported in (1969) 2 SCC 262, wherein

it was held that the aim of the rules of Natural Justice is to secure justice or

to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

10/19

The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change

in recent years. Initially recognized as consisting of two principles, that is,

no one shall be a judge in his own cause and no decision shall be given

against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing, various other

facets have been recognized. In para 20 the following has been held:

“20. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure

justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of

justice. These rules can operate only in areas not

covered by any law validly made. In other words, they

do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it.

The concept of natural justice has undergone a great

deal of change in recent years. In the past it was

thought that it included just two rules, namely, (1) no

one shall be a judge in his own case (nemo debet esse

judex propria causa), and (2) no decision shall be given

against a party without affording him a reasonable

hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a

third rule was envisaged and, that is, that quasi-judicial

enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and

not arbitrarily or unreasonably….”

18. Reliance has also been placed on State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha

reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had laid

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

11/19

down that Enquiry Officer is a quasi-judicial authority, he has to act as an

independent adjudicator and he is not a representative of the

department/disciplinary authority/Government. In paras 28 and 30 the

following has been held:

“28.

An Enquiry Officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is

in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not

supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary

authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence

presented by the Department, even in the absence of the

delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence

is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present

case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no

oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been

proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to

conclude that the charges have been proved against the

respondents.

30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the

government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise.

The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a

closed mind. The Enquiry Officer has to be wholly unbiased.

The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to

ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

12/19

done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a

government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may

culminate in imposition of punishment including

dismissal/removal from service.”

19.

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the case of Rajesh Ranjan

Poddar v. State of Bihar in C.W.J.C. No. 2330 of 2015, a Bench of this

Court, on facts materially similar to the present case, found that no witness

was led by the department nor was any attempt made by the Presenting

Officer to substantiate the charges, and therefore, the order of dismissal and

the appellate order as being in violation of the applicable disciplinary rules

and the principles of natural justice was set aside.

20. The counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance on the case of

Sanjeev Kumar Suman v. State of Bihar, having C.W.J.C. No. 7986 of

2015, wherein the case of the co-delinquent official proceeded against

with, on identical facts arising from the very same incident, resulted in the

setting aside of the dismissal order as well as the rejection of the

departmental appeal. Parity of treatment, in the absence of any

distinguishing feature between the two cases pointed out by the

respondents, is a legitimate consideration in service jurisprudence.

21. The core issues for determination in the instant writ application are

enunciated hereunder:

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

13/19

i.Whether the failure of the respondent authorities to supply the

documents sought by the Petitioner during departmental

enquiry, vitiates the proceeding as being contrary to the

principles of natural justice;

ii.Whether non-appointment of Presenting Officer ipso facto

vitiates the inquiry.

22. On meticulous examination of the facts and, settled principles of law,

it is not out of place to state that the Disciplinary Authority performs quasi-

judicial functions. The said authority is required to maintain absolute

fairness in conduct of departmental enquiry. The charges leveled against

the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The Inquiry

Officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the

materials brought on record by the parties as has been observed in the

celebrated judgement of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and

others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570.

23. In the case of Ganesh Pandey v. State of Bihar having LPA No.

410 of 2022, while dealing with a limited issue of failure of respondent

authorities to supply the documents sought by the appellant during the

departmental, causing prejudice to the delinquent, thereby vitiating the

proceeding as being contrary to the principles of natural justice has

categorically held that:

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

14/19

“……the enquiry proceedings cannot be said to have

been conducted in a fair, transparent, or bona fide

manner. Rather, the manner in which the proceedings

have been conducted gives rise to a clear impression

that the enquiry was reduced to a mere formality,

without adherence to the essential safeguards required

under law. The opportunity purportedly afforded to the

appellant was, therefore, illusory and not in conformity

with the principle of natural justice.

…..this Court is clearly of the view that the entire

departmental proceeding stands vitiated on account of

violation of the principles of natural justice, resulting in

manifest prejudice to the appellant. The learned Single

Judge, has not appropriately appreciated the effect of

such non-supply of documents on the fairness of the

enquiry, and therefore the impugned order cannot be

sustained in law”.

24. Applying the aforesaid principles of law at hand, this Court is of the

view that non- supply of documents to the Petitioner even on being

requested for same, is against the very principle of natural justice and the

respondent authorities in not acceding to the request of the Petitioner have

acted in contravention of the principles of natural justice.

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

15/19

25. Insofar as, the Second Issue is concerned, it is relevant to cite the case

of Union of India vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra), wherein categorical

observation has been made with respect to the issue that when the statutory

rule does not contemplate appointment of Presenting Officer whether non-

appointment of Presenting Officer ipso facto vitiates the inquiry? The said

issue was answered in the following terms:

“We have noticed the statutory provision of Rule 27

which does not indicate that there is any statutory

requirement of appointment of Presenting Officer in the

disciplinary inquiry. It is thus clear that statutory

provision does not mandate appointment of Presenting

Officer. When the statutory provision does not require

appointment of Presenting Officer whether there can be

any circumstances where principles of natural justice

can be held to be violated is the broad question which

needs to be answered in this case. We have noticed

above that the High Court found breach of principles of

natural justice in Enquiry Officer acting as the

prosecutor against the respondents. The Enquiry

Officer who has to be independent and not

representative of the disciplinary authority if starts

acting in any other capacity and proceeds to act in a

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

16/19

manner as if he is interested in eliciting evidence to

punish an employee, the principle of bias comes into

place”.

26. Significantly, however, it is not disputed and is apparent from the face

of both the order of dismissal dated 12.06.2014, and the appellate order

dated 02/03.10.2016, emanate from the same authority, the Deputy

Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range. This is a matter squarely

taken up in the petitioner's rejoinder, invoking the settled principle that no

one can be a judge in his own cause (nemo judex in causa sua), and hence,

in the considered opinion of this Court, it is therefore, stated that the

aforesaid principle of natural justice also has not been effectively complied

with, in the instant case.

27. It is a well settled law that in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution over an order of punishment passed in a departmental

proceeding, this Court does not sit in appeal over the sufficiency of

evidence.

It does, however, examine whether the proceeding has been

conducted consistently with the principles of natural justice and the

statutory rules governing it, and whether the findings are based on some

legal evidence or are, instead, the product of surmise and conjecture.

28. In view of the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is constraint to hold that

the disciplinary proceeding as against the Petitioner suffers from the

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

17/19

infirmities, thereby causing prejudice to the Petitioner. The Conducting

Officer commenced recording the statements of witnesses before the

petitioner was permitted to file even his preliminary written statement,

which is contrary to Para 12 of Appendix-49 of the Police Manual and Rule

7(d) of Police Order No. 109.

No Presenting Officer was appointed, and the Conducting Officer

himself assumed that role while simultaneously adjudicating upon the

charges. Furthermore, the finding of guilt on Charges 2 to 5 rests

substantially on documents and the enquiry reports of the Superintendent

of Police and SDPO Sadar, none of which were exhibited in the enquiry or

ever supplied to the petitioner despite his six successive representations

between September 2012 and May 2014.

29. Moreover, the appellate order dated 02/03.10.2016 was passed

without affording any hearing to the petitioner at all, in direct violation of

this Court's earlier order dated 23.08.2016 in C.W.J.C. No. 109 of 2015,

and on the face of the record by the very authority (DIG, Darbhanga

Range) that had passed the original order of dismissal, offending the

principle that no one may be a judge in his own cause.

It is also not out of place to hold that, a similarly situated co-

delinquent official, proceeded against on the identical facts of the very

same incident, has already had his dismissal order and appellate rejection

set aside by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7986 of 2015.

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

18/19

30. The aforesaid infirmities cannot be treated as mere technical or

procedural irregularities. Considered cumulatively, they have caused real

and demonstrable prejudice to the petitioner in the conduct of the

departmental proceeding.

The case, therefore, stands on a footing materially different from

one involving the mere non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, which, by

itself, may not necessarily vitiate the enquiry in terms of the ratio laid

down in Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra). In the present

case, the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer was accompanied by the

Conducting Officer himself assuming that role, reliance upon material

which was neither duly proved nor made available to the petitioner, and

denial of an effective opportunity to defend himself.

In these circumstances, the enquiry report dated 11.10.2012, and

the consequential order of dismissal dated 12.06.2014 as well as the

rejection order of appeal dated 02/03.2016, cannot be sustained.

31. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this writ application is allowed

in the terms stated hereunder:

1The appellate order dated 02/03.10.2016 (Annexure-2),

communicated vide Memo No. 898 dated 03.10.2016, is set aside;

2The order of punishment dated 12.06.2014, contained in

Darbhanga Range Order No. 160/14 issued under Memo No. 813

Patna High Court CWJC No.996 of 2017 dt.03-09-2026

19/19

(Annexure-47), whereby the petitioner was dismissed from

service, is quashed and set aside;

3The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits

arising out from the quashing of the dismissal order, including

notional continuity in service up to the date of his superannuation

(01.10.2014) and the retiral and other benefits admissible in law, to

be computed and disbursed by the respondents within 3 months

from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

32. This writ application stands allowed accordingly, with no order as to

costs.

Sanjeev/-

(Kumar Manish, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 17.08.2026

Uploading Date 03.09.2026

Transmission Date