The Court found that the authorities punished him without giving a proper chance to reply when they disagreed with the enquiry officer’s clean chit.
Both the punishment order and the appeal rejection were set aside.
The case is sent back to be dealt with according to law, if the authorities so choose.
Case Background
The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police in 2009. In September 2020, he was posted as Station House Officer (SHO) of Ganga Bridge Police Station in Vaishali district.
According to him, he was performing his duties diligently and to the satisfaction of his seniors. On 25.11.2020, he received information that some miscreants were manufacturing illicit liquor and had stored a large quantity of it within his police station area.
He first made a sanha entry bearing Entry No. 645 about this information. He then started preparing, along with his police team, to conduct a raid at the place of occurrence.
Before he could proceed, the Anti-Liquor Task Force (ALTF) reached Ganga Bridge Police Station. After their arrival, another sanha entry, No. 646, was made. A joint inspection was then carried out by the local police and the ALTF at the spot.
During this joint raid, a huge quantity of country-made illicit liquor, an illicit liquor manufacturing kiln, and about ten thousand litres of raw “jawa mahua” mix were recovered.
Four days later, by order dated 29.11.2020, the Director General of Police, Bihar, placed the petitioner under suspension. A departmental proceeding was initiated by memo dated 30.11.2020, enclosing a charge-sheet in Praptra “Ka”.
The charge-sheet relied on a letter dated 24.11.2020 issued by the Bihar Police Headquarters (Excise & Prohibition Department), Patna. This letter stated that if the ALTF recovered illicit liquor within the area of a police station, the Officer-in-Charge of that police station would be held guilty and severe legal and administrative action would follow.
On this basis, the petitioner was charged with gross negligence and dereliction of duty because the ALTF had recovered a huge quantity of illicit liquor and raw material within the jurisdiction of Ganga Bridge Police Station while he was SHO.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The departmental enquiry was conducted by an Enquiry Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority. After examining the materials, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 24.02.2021.
In this report, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charges. In other words, the officer conducting the enquiry did not find sufficient material to hold the petitioner responsible for negligence or dereliction of duty.
Despite this, the disciplinary authority, the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, chose not to accept the Enquiry Officer’s finding. However, instead of clearly recording why he disagreed, he simply issued a letter dated 28.02.2021 to the petitioner.
This letter enclosed a copy of the enquiry report and asked the petitioner to submit his defence explanation only on the question of proposed punishment. The letter did not explain any reasons for disagreement with the clean chit given by the Enquiry Officer.
The petitioner filed his reply on 05.03.2021. In this reply, he highlighted his work during the short period of about two months he had been posted as SHO at Ganga Bridge Police Station.
He stated that during this time he had lodged nine FIRs under the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act, 2016/2018 and had recovered 4584.63 litres of country-made and foreign liquor. He also pointed out that he had ensured peace during the Vidhan Sabha elections and the festivals of Dusshera, Deepawali and Chhath, while maintaining law and order in the area.
The petitioner further explained that, before the ALTF arrived at the police station on 25.11.2020, he had already made Sanha Entry No. 645 regarding the illegal liquor activities and was preparing to conduct a raid. Because the ALTF arrived in the meantime, the raid became a joint operation, and the recovery of illicit liquor was made jointly.
According to the petitioner, this showed that he was proactive rather than negligent.
Despite this reply, the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order dated 21.03.2021. By this order, the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, imposed the following penalties:
- Forfeiture of two annual increments with cumulative effect; and
- Debarring the petitioner from being posted as Officer-in-Charge or Outpost in-charge at any police station for ten years.
The petitioner appealed this order before the Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 26.07.2021, thereby upholding the punishment.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging both the punishment order and the appellate order.
In the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel raised a narrow but important legal point. He argued that once the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner, the disciplinary authority could not directly impose a punishment without first:
(a) Recording tentative reasons for disagreeing with the enquiry report, and
(b) Giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond to those reasons before recording a final finding of guilt.
He submitted that in this case, no such reasons were recorded, and no such opportunity was given. The second show-cause notice dated 28.02.2021 only asked for a reply on the proposed punishment, assuming the petitioner to be guilty, and did not disclose any basis for differing from the Enquiry Officer.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that this conduct showed premeditation to punish, and that it violated the principles of natural justice. To support his argument, he relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Lav Nigam v. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. & Anr., (2006) 9 SCC 440.
The Patna High Court reproduced key passages from this decision. The Supreme Court had held that when a disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry officer’s exoneration, it must issue a separate notice with its tentative reasons for disagreement and give the employee a chance to respond.
Only after considering that response can the authority arrive at a final finding of guilt. After that, a fresh notice regarding the proposed punishment is required. The Supreme Court had also referred to the earlier case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, where similar principles were laid down.
In the present case, the counsel for the State supported the punishment orders and argued that they did not suffer from any legal infirmity. However, he was unable to show any material to prove that a show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioner setting out reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer’s findings.
The Patna High Court carefully considered the record. It noted that:
- The petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer on 24.02.2021.
- No separate notice was issued explaining why the disciplinary authority disagreed with this finding.
- The letter dated 28.02.2021 was only a notice on the question of punishment and did not disclose any reasons for disagreement.
The Court held that this omission amounted to a clear breach of the principles of natural justice. The employee must know why the authority is discarding the favourable enquiry report, and he must be allowed to contest those reasons before any final conclusion is reached.
The Court further held that the facts of the present case were squarely covered by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lav Nigam. There also, the disciplinary authority had not given a proper notice of disagreement and had only issued a notice on proposed punishment. The Supreme Court had set aside such action.
Applying that precedent, the Patna High Court concluded that the order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, and the appellate order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur, were “unfair, unjust and illegal” and therefore stood vitiated in law.
Accordingly, the Court quashed both orders and allowed the writ petition.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for all government employees, especially police personnel, who face departmental enquiries.
It clarifies that if the enquiry officer clears an employee of the charges, the higher authority cannot secretly disagree and still punish him without explaining why. The authority must first share its tentative reasons for disagreeing and then hear the employee on those reasons.
For police officers posted in sensitive areas like prohibition enforcement, this ruling shows that they cannot be punished mechanically just because another agency makes a recovery in their area. Proper procedure and fair hearing are mandatory.
For ordinary citizens and government staff, the ruling reinforces that “natural justice” — the right to a fair chance to defend yourself — is not an empty formality. If authorities skip this step, courts can step in and set aside the punishment.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can a disciplinary authority impose punishment on a government employee after an enquiry officer has exonerated him, without recording reasons for disagreement and without giving him an opportunity to reply to those reasons?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the disciplinary authority must record its tentative reasons for disagreement with the enquiry officer and give the employee a chance to respond. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice and vitiates the punishment. -
Issue: Were the punishment order dated 23.03.2021 and the appellate order dated 26.07.2021 legally sustainable?
Answer: No. The Court held that both orders were unfair, unjust, illegal, and stood vitiated in law because no proper show-cause notice of disagreement was issued. Both orders were therefore quashed.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Lav Nigam v. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. & Anr., (2006) 9 SCC 440
- Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1783 (referred to within the extract from Lav Nigam)
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20370 of 2021
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Pankaj v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2024(1) PLJR 638
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Date of Judgment: 30.11.2023
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate; Mr. Abhishek Teerthankar, Advocate
- For the respondents (State): Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4; Mr. Ajay Kumar, AC to GP-4
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (service/disciplinary matter)
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
