Case Background
This case arises from appointments made to the post of Constable in 1994 in Bihar Police. Four persons — late Deep Narayan Ram, late Rama Shankar Mahto, Rameshwar Prasad Singh and Chhedi Mandal — were selected and appointed as constables on 16.09.1994.
They continued in service for about nine years. On 18.01.2003, by District Order No. 40/2003 issued through Memo No. 71 dated 18.01.2003, their services were terminated. The reason given was that their appointments had been made illegally by the then Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police without following the proper procedure or regulation.
Feeling aggrieved, the affected constables and, later, the legal heirs of the deceased constables approached the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 9595 of 2003. That writ petition was decided on 30.08.2018.
In the 2018 decision, the Court noted that the parties agreed that an order similar to the one passed in L.P.A. No. 1584 of 2017 (dated 31.01.2018) should govern the case. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the termination order dated 18.01.2003. It granted liberty to the petitioners or their legal heirs to approach the Director General of Police, Bihar, with a certified copy of the order and all relevant documents. The DGP was directed to examine their claim, applying the observations made in L.P.A. No. 1584 of 2017, within 60 days.
Pursuant to that liberty, representations were filed before the Director General of Police. Acting through the Inspector General of Police (Budget/Appeal/Welfare), the DGP passed Memo No. 319 dated 15.04.2019. By this memo, the authorities rejected the representations of the petitioners, including legal heirs, and refused reinstatement and monetary benefits.
The seven petitioners in the present case include the widows and children of late Deep Narayan Ram and late Rama Shankar Mahto, along with the two surviving constables, Rameshwar Prasad Singh and Chhedi Mandal. They challenged Memo No. 319 dated 15.04.2019 and the original dismissal order of 18.01.2003 in the present writ petition, CWJC No. 15289 of 2019.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioners asked for three main reliefs. First, they sought quashing of Memo No. 319 dated 15.04.2019 by which their representations had been rejected. Second, they sought quashing of the District Order No. 40/2003 (Memo No. 71 dated 18.01.2003) dismissing them from service. Third, they sought a mandamus directing the authorities to appoint or treat them as constables with all notional benefits, including arrears of salary for the dismissal period and consequential benefits with interest.
During the course of earlier litigation, two of the original constables — Deep Narayan Ram and Rama Shankar Mahto — died. Their legal heirs continued the fight, mainly claiming monetary benefits up to the date of death.
In this fresh round, the petitioners argued that the impugned memo dated 15.04.2019 was bad because it was issued without any disciplinary proceedings. They contended that, once the 2003 termination order had been quashed by the High Court in 2018, their earlier position in service stood restored. Therefore, any further adverse decision, such as rejection of reinstatement or denial of monetary benefits, could be taken only after following proper disciplinary procedure.
They also argued that no order could be passed against dead persons. According to them, proceedings against late Deep Narayan Ram and late Rama Shankar Mahto automatically abated on their death. Their legal heirs were thus entitled to monetary benefits from 18.01.2003 till the respective dates of death, because there was no valid subsisting order against them.
The State, on the other hand, defended the rejection order. It claimed that the appointments of all four constables were illegal right from the start, as the mandatory selection procedure was not followed. Therefore, according to the State, the dismissal could be sustained without a full-fledged disciplinary enquiry. The State relied on a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court dated 29.03.2019 passed in CWJC No. 14455 of 2007 with CWJC No. 14230 of 2007 to support its stand on illegal appointments. It argued that illegal appointments can be cancelled without the usual safeguards.
Justice P. B. Bajanthri first noted the undisputed facts. The four constables had been appointed on 16.09.1994, had served till 18.01.2003, and the 2003 termination order had already been set aside by the High Court in 2018 in CWJC No. 9595 of 2003. The DGP had accepted that decision and acted on it by passing the impugned memo dated 15.04.2019.
The Court then examined the legal effect of quashing the 2003 termination order. It relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, reported in (1992) 3 SCC 1. In that case, the Supreme Court clearly distinguished between “quashing” an order and merely “staying” its operation. When an order is quashed, the parties are restored to the position that existed before the order was passed. A stay order, by contrast, keeps the order alive but non-operative.
Applying this principle, the Patna High Court held that quashing the termination order of 18.01.2003 effectively restored the original position of the constables. For Rameshwar Prasad Singh and Chhedi Mandal, this meant that they once again stood as serving constables, unless and until a fresh, lawful termination was passed after following due process.
Regarding the two deceased constables, the Court accepted that all proceedings against them stood abated on their death. Therefore, their legal heirs were entitled to have their monetary claims considered. The Court recorded that the legal heirs of late Deep Narayan Ram and late Rama Shankar Mahto were entitled to monetary benefits from the date of the original termination (18.01.2003) till the dates of death of the deceased employees. The authorities were duty-bound to examine and settle these claims.
The Court emphasized that the respondents had simply rejected the claims for reinstatement and monetary benefits without any valid basis remaining, once the 2003 termination was quashed. As long as no fresh adverse order was passed following proper procedure, there was “nothing adverse” pending against the petitioners.
The Court then turned to how the disciplinary authority should proceed when a punishment order is set aside on a technical ground. It referred to the Supreme Court decisions in ECIL v. B. Karunakaran, (1993) 4 SCC 727, and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha and others, (2011) 5 SCC 142. Quoting paragraphs 46 to 50 of Ananta Saha, the Court highlighted several principles:
First, when a punishment is set aside on technical grounds, the disciplinary authority can hold a fresh enquiry from the stage where the defect arose. However, for such fresh enquiry, the employee must be reinstated and can be placed under suspension during the enquiry. Subsistence allowance must be paid as per rules.
Second, the result of the fresh enquiry relates back to the date of the original punishment. Thus, the legal position after the fresh enquiry covers the entire period since the first termination.
Third, grant of back wages is not automatic even after reinstatement. It is a discretionary matter, to be decided by the disciplinary authority or the court, looking at all facts and principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held there is no rigid formula for back wages.
On these principles, Justice Bajanthri concluded that the disciplinary authority was required to “settle the intervening period” from 18.01.2003 until the final decision is taken. For late Deep Narayan Ram and late Rama Shankar Mahto, all proceedings had abated due to their deaths, and their legal heirs were entitled to monetary benefits, which had to be examined and settled within three months of receipt of the High Court’s order.
For the surviving constables, Rameshwar Prasad Singh and Chhedi Mandal, the Court noted that, even by the date of the judgment in 2022, no fresh termination order had been passed in compliance with the earlier High Court order of 30.08.2018. The only action taken was rejection of their request for reinstatement.
The Court observed that merely issuing a show cause notice was not enough. The authorities had taken a stand that the initial appointments were irregular and contrary to law. However, these two constables had been duly selected, appointed on 16.09.1994, and their performance had been found satisfactory. Before terminating their services again, the disciplinary authority was obliged to follow full disciplinary procedure, including a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the relevant rules.
In this context, the Court held that the impugned order dated 15.04.2019 (Annexure-8) could not stand. It was quashed. The disciplinary authority was directed to regularize the position of Rameshwar Prasad Singh and Chhedi Mandal, specifically to deal with the period from 18.01.2003 till passing of a final order, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ananta Saha (Coal India case).
The Court gave a clear time limit. The disciplinary authority must take appropriate action within three months from the date of receipt of the High Court’s order. If this is not done, then, by default, Rameshwar Prasad Singh and Chhedi Mandal would be entitled to monetary benefits for the intervening period from 18.01.2003 till the final order, along with reinstatement into service.
With these directions and observations, the writ petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for government employees, particularly in Bihar Police, whose appointments are later branded as “illegal” or “irregular”. It shows that even if the State believes an appointment was not made according to rules, it cannot simply label it illegal after many years of service and deny salary or benefits without following due process.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that once a termination order is quashed, the employee’s earlier status is restored. If the department still wants to take action, it must hold proper disciplinary proceedings, including a fair enquiry, before passing a fresh order.
For families of employees who die during such disputes, the judgment confirms that proceedings against them end with their death. However, their legal heirs can claim monetary benefits up to the date of death when the earlier termination has been set aside and no valid adverse order remains.
Practically, this decision puts pressure on departments to act within time. If they delay beyond the period fixed by the Court, they risk being forced to pay back wages and reinstate the employee.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: What is the effect of quashing the 2003 termination order on the status and monetary claims of the constables and their legal heirs?
Answer: Quashing the termination restored the original service position. For the deceased constables, all proceedings abated on death and their legal heirs are entitled to monetary benefits from 18.01.2003 till death. For the surviving constables, there was no valid termination in force and their claims could not be rejected without fresh, lawful disciplinary action. -
Issue: Can the authorities deny reinstatement and back wages by merely branding the initial appointment as illegal, without holding a proper enquiry after the earlier termination has been set aside?
Answer: No. Following Supreme Court precedents, once punishment is quashed on technical grounds, the authorities must hold a proper fresh enquiry, after reinstating (and, if necessary, suspending) the employee. Simple rejection of reinstatement without such enquiry is unsustainable. -
Issue: What are the consequences if the disciplinary authority fails to act within the time granted by the Court?
Answer: If the authority does not take appropriate action within three months, the two surviving constables become entitled to monetary benefits for the intervening period from 18.01.2003 until the final order, as well as reinstatement into service.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras, (1992) 3 SCC 1
- ECIL v. B. Karunakaran, (1993) 4 SCC 727
- Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha and others, (2011) 5 SCC 142
- Full Bench decision of Patna High Court dated 29.03.2019 in CWJC No. 14455 of 2007 with CWJC No. 14230 of 2007 (referred by State, though not the basis of the final directions)
- L.P.A. No. 1584 of 2017, Patna High Court, judgment dated 31.01.2018 (referred in earlier round of litigation)
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15289 of 2019
Case Title: Chandrawati Devi & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (2) PLJR 155
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Date of Judgment: 22.03.2022 (Uploaded on 24.03.2022)
Advocates for Petitioners: Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Kumar Kishan, Advocate
Advocates for Respondents (State): Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC 8; Mr. Anil Kumar, AC to SC 8
Respondent Authorities: State of Bihar through Home Secretary; Director General of Police, Bihar; Director General-cum-Inspector General, Bihar; D.I.G. Darbhanga Zone; Superintendent of Police, Katihar; Superintendent of Police (Rail), Katihar; Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga; and private respondents
Nature of Case: Civil writ petition challenging dismissal from service and rejection of representations, seeking reinstatement and monetary benefits
Link to Judgment: Click here to view the full Patna High Court judgment
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.
