Case Background
The petitioner was selected for the post of Police Sub Inspector in Bihar. After his selection, he joined service and was sent for basic training.
On 04.02.2021, he reported at Bihar Special Arms Police No. 4, Dumraon, for his basic training. He completed that training and appeared in all the outdoor examinations/tests. He was declared successful in those outdoor components.
The next stage was the indoor examination. This indoor examination was scheduled to be held between 31.05.2021 and 14.06.2021.
Two days before the scheduled indoor examination, CCTV cameras were being installed in the examination room. At this point, an allegation arose that the petitioner and two other trainee officers, named in the judgment as Manish Prajapati and Skant Kumar Gupta, tampered with the CCTV camera.
On the basis of this allegation, all three trainees were debarred from appearing in the final examination. A separate departmental enquiry was initiated against each of them.
After completion of the enquiry against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 12.03.2022 (Annexure P/14), terminating his services. The petitioner challenged this termination by filing a departmental appeal.
The appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 06.06.2023 (Annexure P/16). The petitioner then preferred a Memorial Appeal, which was also dismissed by order dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure 18/1). An order dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P/17) was also passed against him in this chain of proceedings.
With all departmental remedies exhausted and his dismissal maintained, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1795 of 2024. He challenged the original dismissal order as well as the appellate, memorial and related orders.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition came up before Hon’ble Mr Justice Arvind Singh Chandel of the Patna High Court. The core challenge was to four orders: the dismissal order dated 12.03.2022, the appellate rejection dated 06.06.2023, the order dated 18.07.2023, and the Memorial rejection dated 09.01.2024.
The petitioner’s main case was not focused on re-arguing the factual allegation of tampering with the CCTV camera. Instead, he attacked the legality of the departmental enquiry and the manner in which the punishment had been imposed.
Through counsel, the petitioner drew the Court’s attention to the fate of the other two trainees who had faced identical charges arising from the same incident—Manish Prajapati and Skant Kumar Gupta. Their services had also been dismissed on similar allegations and similar enquiries.
Those two officers had earlier approached the Patna High Court by filing CWJC No. 1638 of 2024 and CWJC No. 1111 of 2024. Both those writ petitions had been allowed by the Court by a common order dated 03.03.2025.
In those earlier cases, the Court had found that there was a violation of Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, commonly referred to as the 2005 Rules. The Court had also found that key witnesses were not examined in the enquiry.
In particular, the earlier judgments had noted two serious problems. First, the mandatory procedure in Rule 17(3) of the 2005 Rules was not followed during the departmental enquiry. Second, the CCTV camera operator, Rahul Kumar, and other trainee officers who were present in the room at the relevant time were not examined as witnesses.
In the present case, counsel for the petitioner argued that the facts and procedure were identical. The same incident, the same allegation of tampering with the CCTV camera during its installation, and the same pattern of enquiry and punishment applied to him as it did to Manish Prajapati and Skant Kumar Gupta.
He submitted that in his case also, the authorities had not complied with Rule 17(3) of the 2005 Rules. Further, despite being key witnesses, the CCTV camera operator Rahul Kumar and the other trainee officers present in the room when the alleged tampering occurred were not examined during the departmental enquiry.
On this basis, he requested that the present writ petition should be allowed in the same manner as the earlier petitions of his co-trainees, and that his dismissal and related orders should be set aside.
The State, through its counsel, did not attempt to distinguish the petitioner’s case from that of the two earlier writ petitions. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-State fairly admitted before the Court that the case of the present petitioner was identical to the cases of Manish Prajapati and Skant Kumar Gupta.
With this position admitted on both sides, the Court turned to examine whether the same defects that had led to setting aside the orders in the earlier cases were present here too.
The Court recorded that, as in the earlier cases, the provisions of Rule 17(3) of the 2005 Rules had not been complied with in the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner. Rule 17(3) sets out procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings, aimed at ensuring fairness while taking action that can affect a government servant’s livelihood and service career.
The Court also noted that the material witness Rahul Kumar, the CCTV camera operator, had not been examined. In addition, the other trainee officers who were present in the room at the time of the alleged tampering with the CCTV camera were also not examined by the department.
These omissions were not treated as minor. The allegation itself related to interference with a CCTV camera while it was being installed, just two days before an important indoor examination. The person operating that camera and those present at the spot would be the most direct witnesses to whether any tampering took place, and, if so, who was involved.
By not examining Rahul Kumar and the other trainees, the enquiry body deprived itself of crucial primary evidence. This raised serious doubts about the fairness and completeness of the enquiry into such a serious charge, especially when the result of the enquiry was the extreme penalty of dismissal from service.
Taking into consideration both the submissions of counsel and the record of the case, the Court concluded that the petitioner stood on the same footing as Manish Prajapati and Skant Kumar Gupta. The same procedural violation of Rule 17(3) had occurred, and the same crucial witnesses had not been examined.
Therefore, the Court held that the reasons which led it to set aside the dismissal orders in the cases of the petitioner’s co-trainees equally applied here. On these grounds, it found that the impugned orders against the petitioner were liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the following orders:
(i) the dismissal order dated 12.03.2022 (Annexure P/14);
(ii) the appellate order dated 06.06.2023 (Annexure P/16);
(iii) the order dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P/17); and
(iv) the Memorial rejection order dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure P 18/1).
Having set aside these orders, the Court then considered what relief to grant. It directed that, as a consequence, the petitioner must be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. This means that the petitioner is to be treated in law as if the dismissal orders had not been validly passed.
The Court gave a specific time frame to the authorities. It ordered that reinstatement with all consequential benefits must be completed within three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the Court’s order.
With these directions, the writ petition was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for trainee officers and government servants facing departmental enquiries in Bihar. It shows that even when the allegation is serious, such as tampering with CCTV cameras during police training, the authorities must strictly follow the procedure laid down in the 2005 Rules.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that Rule 17(3) cannot be ignored. If proper procedure is not followed, and key witnesses like the CCTV operator and eye-witness trainees are not examined, the entire enquiry can be declared invalid.
For affected employees, this decision reinforces that they have a right to a fair enquiry before losing their job. For departments, it sends a message that shortcuts in disciplinary proceedings may not survive judicial scrutiny, especially when livelihood and career are at stake.
Practically, the case also shows that similarly placed co-accused or co-delinquents should be treated consistently. Once the Court has given relief on the basis of procedural violations to two officers, it will extend the same protection to a third officer in an identical situation.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the departmental enquiry and dismissal of the petitioner, a trainee Police Sub Inspector, were valid when Rule 17(3) of the 2005 Rules was not followed and key witnesses were not examined.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that non-compliance with Rule 17(3) and failure to examine material witnesses like the CCTV operator and other trainees rendered the enquiry and subsequent dismissal unsustainable. The dismissal and related orders were set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with consequential benefits.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment refers to CWJC No. 1638 of 2024 and CWJC No. 1111 of 2024, involving co-trainees Manish Prajapati and Skant Kumar Gupta, whose writ petitions were allowed by order dated 03.03.2025 on similar grounds. No other specific reported case law is cited in the text provided.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1795 of 2024
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Others
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 274
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Date of Judgment: 19.06.2025
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging dismissal from service and rejection of departmental appeal and memorial.
Petitioner’s Advocates: M/s Vinay Ranjan, Utkarsh Ranjan, Prashant Shekhar, Advocates
Respondents’ Advocates: Mr Raghwanand, GA XI with Mr Prabhat Kr, AC to GA XI
Impugned Orders Challenged: Dismissal order dated 12.03.2022 (Annexure P/14); Appellate order dated 06.06.2023 (Annexure P/16); Order dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P/17); Memorial rejection order dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure P 18/1)
Final Outcome: All impugned orders set aside; petitioner directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits within three months from receipt/production of the Court’s order.
Link to judgement ; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTc5NSMyMDI0IzEjTg==-x8yHB4hQibQ=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
