Case Background
The case arose from a departmental proceeding against a government servant working in the Revenue and Land Reforms Department of the Government of Bihar.
The petitioner was initially appointed as a Circle Inspector at Sangrampur Anchal in the Munger district and joined service on 21.09.1990. Later, he served as Circle Officer (Anchal Adhikari) at Azamnagar in the Katihar district.
While he was posted at Azamnagar, the District Magistrate, Katihar, issued a memo of charge (Prapatra-Ka) containing three articles of charge. This initiated a departmental proceeding against him.
The Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, forwarded the charge memo to the petitioner and asked him to file a show cause within 15 days. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 17.07.2014, denying the allegations and seeking exoneration.
Despite this reply, the Special Secretary of the Department decided to initiate a formal departmental proceeding under Rule 17(2) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, commonly referred to as the CCA Rules, 2005.
During the pendency of this proceeding, the petitioner was transferred from Azamnagar to the Consolidation Office, Dinara, in the Rohtas district, where he joined as In-charge Consolidation Officer.
On 18.08.2018 at 1:00 PM, he was directed by the Additional Collector, Katihar, to appear in connection with the departmental proceeding. He appeared and submitted a written statement supported by documents.
The Additional Collector, acting as Enquiry/Conducting Officer, completed the enquiry and submitted his report on 27.09.2018, holding the charges proved against the petitioner.
On the basis of this report, a second show cause notice dated 21.01.2019 was issued to the petitioner by the Department. He submitted his reply on 16.01.2019, reiterating his defence and requesting exoneration.
Thereafter, on 31.10.2019, the Additional Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, passed an order contained in Memo No. 728 (NiO ko), imposing the punishment of withholding three increments in pay with cumulative effect. This is treated as a major punishment.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Service Appeal Case No. 33/2019-20 (Katihar) before the Appellate/Revisional Tribunal-cum-Hon’ble Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. By order dated 17.05.2022, the appeal was rejected.
The petitioner then approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction in C.W.J.C. No. 9740 of 2022, challenging both the disciplinary order dated 31.10.2019 and the appellate order dated 17.05.2022.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman, heard senior counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.
The petitioner’s argument was that he had a long and sincere service record, with favourable Annual Confidential Reports, showing efficiency and excellence. Despite this, he was punished on allegations of inefficiency and misconduct. According to him, this contradiction showed non-application of mind by the department.
He further argued that his reply to the second show cause notice was not considered at all by the disciplinary authority. The punishment order was therefore arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law. He also contended that the appellate authority mechanically rejected his appeal without proper appreciation of facts and law.
The State, on the other hand, defended the departmental proceeding. It said that the petitioner joined as Circle Officer at Azamnagar in 2013 and during his tenure serious lapses were found, such as unauthorised absence, disobedience of lawful orders and avoidance of official duties. These affected the smooth functioning of the office.
According to the State, the petitioner was asked to explain these allegations, but his explanation was unsatisfactory. A formal proceeding under Rule 17(2) of the CCA Rules, 2005 was therefore initiated, and the Additional Collector, Katihar, was appointed as Enquiry Officer.
The State submitted that the enquiry was conducted in full compliance with procedure and natural justice. The petitioner was given adequate opportunity to participate. After considering the evidence, the Enquiry Officer submitted report Letter No. 790 dated 27.09.2018, holding the charges proved.
Following this, a second show cause notice dated 21.01.2019 was issued. The petitioner submitted his representation. The disciplinary authority, after examining the allegations, the petitioner’s explanations and the enquiry report, concluded that the charges stood proved. It then imposed the punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect. The State maintained that the punishment was proportionate to the misconduct.
The State further submitted that the petitioner’s departmental appeal before the Minister-cum-Appellate Authority was considered and rejected by order dated 17.05.2022. It argued that no illegality or irregularity occurred and that the writ petition should be dismissed.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court focused on the legal requirement under Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 2005. Rule 18 governs the action to be taken by the disciplinary authority after receiving the enquiry report.
The Court reproduced Rule 18 in detail. Under Rule 18(2), if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer’s findings, it must record reasons and its own findings. Under Rule 18(3), a copy of the enquiry report with the disciplinary authority’s findings (if any) must be given to the government servant, enabling him to make a representation.
Most importantly, Rule 18(4) provides that the disciplinary authority shall consider the representation or submission, if any, made by the government servant before proceeding to impose any penalty under sub-rules (5) and (6).
The Court noted that in this case a second show cause notice had indeed been issued, and the petitioner had also submitted his reply. Therefore, compliance with Rule 18(3) was not in dispute.
The central question was whether the disciplinary authority had complied with Rule 18(4) by properly considering the petitioner’s representation and giving reasons for accepting or rejecting it.
The High Court examined the disciplinary order contained in Memo No. 728 dated 31.10.2019. It found that the petitioner’s representation had been dealt with only in a very brief way. The relevant part stated, in substance, that after considering the charges, his explanation, the enquiry report and his second show cause reply, it was found that his clarification was not acceptable or satisfactory.
The Court held that such a bare observation was not enough. Disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature. This means they must follow standards similar to those used by courts, including recording reasons and showing how the authority applied its mind.
The High Court emphasised that simply stating that the delinquent employee’s explanation is “not satisfactory” does not meet the requirement of law. The disciplinary authority is bound to scrutinise the representation and assign reasons while passing the final order, in line with Rule 18(4).
In this case, the disciplinary order did not show any particular reasoning on why the petitioner’s defence was rejected or how each charge was assessed in light of his reply. There was no discussion of the points he raised in response to the second show cause notice.
Similarly, the appellate order dated 17.05.2022 passed by the Appellate/Revisional Tribunal-cum-Hon’ble Minister was found to suffer from the same defect. The appellate authority had merely recorded that the explanation in response to the second show cause notice was not satisfactory, without any detailed reasoning.
Because of this, the Court concluded that both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority had failed to apply their judicial mind as required under Rule 18(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005.
On that basis, the High Court held that the disciplinary order dated 31.10.2019 (Memo No. 728) imposing the punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect could not be sustained. The appellate order dated 17.05.2022 in Service Appeal Case No. 33/2019-20 also could not stand.
The Court therefore set aside both orders.
However, the Court did not exonerate the petitioner or close the matter. Instead, it remanded the case back to the disciplinary authority. The authority has been directed to pass a fresh order, this time after due consideration of the petitioner’s second show cause reply.
The High Court fixed a time limit, directing that the fresh order must be passed within 90 days from the date of the judgment.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for government employees facing departmental proceedings and for authorities conducting such enquiries.
For employees, it shows that even if charges are found proved in an enquiry, the disciplinary and appellate authorities must still carefully read and deal with their replies to the second show cause notice. A punishment order that only says “explanation not satisfactory” without reasons can be challenged.
For departments, the judgment from the Patna High Court is a reminder that disciplinary orders are quasi-judicial. They must explain why a person’s defence is rejected, especially when Rule 18(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005 applies.
The decision does not say that the petitioner is innocent. Instead, it insists on proper procedure and reasoned orders. This benefits both sides: employees know their defence is genuinely considered, and departments issue punishment orders that can stand up in court.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the disciplinary authority complied with Rule 18(4) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 while imposing the punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the disciplinary authority did not properly consider the petitioner’s second show cause reply and gave no reasons beyond stating that his explanation was not satisfactory. - Issue: Whether the appellate authority’s order upholding the punishment was sustainable in law.
Answer: No. The Court found that the appellate authority also failed to apply its judicial mind and merely recorded that the explanation was not satisfactory, so its order was set aside. - Issue: What course of action should follow the finding of non-compliance with Rule 18(4).
Answer: The Court remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh, reasoned order after properly considering the petitioner’s second show cause reply, within 90 days.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No previous judicial decisions or case law have been cited or relied upon in the judgment text.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9740 of 2022
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Bhandari v. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 (2) PLJR 662
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Advocates: For the petitioner – Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Parmeshwar Vishwakarma, Advocate. For the respondents – Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging departmental punishment and appellate order in a service matter.
Key Dates: First show cause reply dated 17.07.2014; Enquiry report Letter No. 790 dated 27.09.2018; Second show cause notice vide Letter No. 4 dated 21.01.2019; Punishment order Memo No. 728 dated 31.10.2019; Appellate order dated 17.05.2022; High Court judgment dated 13.03.2026; CAV date 31.01.2026; Uploading date 16.03.2026.
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.
