Case Background
The petitioner joined the Bihar Police as a Constable and was later promoted to Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) in November 2016. On 09.12.2016, he was posted at Beur Police Station, Patna.
On 03.02.2017, the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Central Range, Patna, noticed illegal manufacturing and trade of liquor under the jurisdiction of Beur Police Station. He directed that necessary action be taken. That same day, a report was submitted (later annexed in the writ petition as Annexure-2) stating that illegal liquor trade was running under the patronage of Beur Police Station staff, allegedly in connivance with other persons, and that the petitioner was also involved.
On 14.02.2017, by Memo No. 1097, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Patna, placed the petitioner under suspension and directed action against the Officer Incharge of Beur Police Station and others, including the petitioner.
Following this, the DIG, Central Range, directed the SSP, Patna, to conduct a departmental proceeding against the Officer Incharge, Dhirendra Kumar Pandey. On 11.05.2017, a decision was also taken to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. That first departmental proceeding ended in his dismissal from service on 06.06.2017, which was confirmed in appeal on 05.10.2017.
The petitioner sought review. The Director General of Police (DGP) found irregularities and illegalities in that first proceeding, set aside both the dismissal and the appellate order, and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority. The DGP also directed that, considering the gravity of the allegation, the petitioner would remain under suspension during the fresh departmental proceeding. The petitioner was reinstated, then again placed under suspension, and on 28.09.2018 a fresh decision was taken to conduct a new departmental inquiry.
For this second inquiry, the DSP, Traffic-I, Patna was appointed as Conducting Officer and the Police Inspector, Traffic, as Presenting Officer. A memo of charge dated 28.03.2019 (Annexure-15) was served, and the petitioner filed a detailed written explanation on 05.05.2019.
During the inquiry, the petitioner requested that certain key persons be produced so he could cross-examine them, and also sought call details. While call records were provided, his request to cross-examine certain persons was refused. Meanwhile, the departmental enquiry against SHO Dhirendra Kumar Pandey concluded with the charges against him not being proved; he was exonerated with a caution by order under Memo No. 359 issued by the DIG, Central Range, Patna.
On 17.08.2019, the DSP, Traffic-I submitted his inquiry report (Annexure-22), holding the charges against the petitioner as proved. The petitioner replied to the show cause notices issued on the basis of that report and on the proposed punishment. The SSP, Patna, by letter No. 4714, recommended dismissal of the petitioner from service to the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna.
By order dated 02.06.2020, bearing Memo No. 173 (Annexure-28), the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal on 02.06.2020 before the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Bihar, Patna, but this appeal was rejected by order dated 07.10.2020 (Annexure-30). Both orders were challenged before the Patna High Court in this writ petition.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The single-judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar first addressed whether the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of an alternative remedy such as a memorial. The Court reiterated that exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to alternative remedies is a rule of discretion, not compulsion. It may be ignored when there is allegation of violation of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction.
Since the petitioner’s core challenge was that the departmental proceedings and orders violated principles of natural justice and Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (Rules, 2005), the Court decided to examine the legality of the inquiry and the punishment orders.
The Court went back to the genesis of the case. The DIG, Central Range, Patna, by Memo No. 231 dated 03.02.2017, had directed the SSP, Patna, to investigate sale and trade of liquor under Beur Police Station, and to transfer existing staff, including the SHO, with immediate effect.
In response, the City S.P. (West) conducted an inquiry and submitted a report under Letter No. 987 dated 13.02.2017. The report stated that on the night of 28/29.01.2017, a vehicle laden with liquor was seized and brought to Beur Police Station. It further alleged that the police patrolling party, in collusion with the O.D. Officer, released the vehicle and the apprehended person after extorting Rs. 1,64,000/-. It also said that Sub Inspector Sunil Kumar and Jitendra Kumar, the private driver of the SHO, were involved, and that later information surfaced implicating the petitioner as well.
Crucially, the report concluded that Jitendra Kumar, the private driver of the SHO, was involved in illicit liquor trade with the help of some police personnel. This report was the basis for suspending multiple officers including the petitioner, Sunil Kumar, Vishwambar Prasad and SHO Dhirendra Kumar Pandey.
When the Court turned to the memo of charge served on the petitioner on 28.03.2019, it noted that the charge only stated that, as per the City S.P.’s inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty in relation to illegal manufacturing and trade of liquor while posted at Beur Police Station. His conduct was termed unbecoming of a police officer, amounting to misconduct, disobedience and negligence of duty.
The Court found that this charge did not mention any specific incident, date, or concrete act by the petitioner. There was “no whisper” about the events of 28/29.01.2017. It was not clear what exact action of the petitioner constituted misconduct, disobedience or negligence.
Further, Rule 17 of the Rules, 2005 requires that, when an inquiry is proposed, the disciplinary authority must frame distinct articles of charge and provide a statement of imputations of misconduct supported by relevant facts, list of documents, and list of witnesses by whom the charges will be proved.
In this case, the list of witnesses appended to the memo of charge did not include any person who witnessed the 28/29.01.2017 incident or who had actually spoken about the petitioner’s alleged role. Instead, the witnesses were merely formal: Incharge, General Branch, DIG, Central Range; Confidential Reader of SSP Crime Reader; City S.P.; and ASI, New Police Line. Even their names were not mentioned, only designations.
The Court observed that the witnesses examined in the departmental proceeding were only formal witnesses who identified and certified signatures on documents. None spoke from personal knowledge about the petitioner’s alleged complicity. Despite this, the Enquiry Officer returned a finding of guilt based essentially on the earlier preliminary inquiry report of 13.02.2017.
However, the author of that preliminary report (the City S.P.) was not examined as a witness in the departmental enquiry, nor were those whose statements he had earlier recorded. The Court stressed that, as held repeatedly by the Supreme Court, merely tendering documents does not prove the contents; there must be oral or documentary evidence properly proved during the inquiry.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, where it was held that for serious penalties like dismissal, it is essential to have witnesses and oral evidence with opportunity for cross-examination. Mere reliance on unproved reports or confessions is not enough, and principles of natural justice must be respected.
The Patna High Court also referred to Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, where the Supreme Court held that the right to cross-examination is an indispensable part of natural justice, and that affidavits or written statements cannot be treated as evidence unless the person can be cross-examined.
Applying these principles, the Court noted that the petitioner’s request to cross-examine key persons whose statements were crucial had been denied. The State argued that the petitioner had refused to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were recorded on 13.08.2019, but the Court emphasised that these were only formal witnesses, not those with first-hand knowledge of the alleged misconduct.
Another serious defect found was that the Presenting Officer played virtually no role. It appeared that the Enquiry Officer himself assumed the role of Presenting Officer, presenting the department’s case and also judging it. Referring to its earlier decision in Panchanan Kumar v. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors, the Court held that when an Enquiry Officer combines both roles without explanation, the inquiry is vitiated as it is inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.
The Court also recalled the Supreme Court’s observations in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, that an Enquiry Officer must be unbiased and cannot proceed with a “closed mind”.
The Court then set out the limited scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings under Article 226, as crystallised in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran. While the High Court does not reappreciate evidence like an appellate court, it can interfere where, among other things, the inquiry is not held by a competent authority, the prescribed procedure is not followed, principles of natural justice are violated, relevant evidence is ignored, inadmissible evidence is relied upon, or the findings are based on no evidence.
In this case, the Court found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer and disciplinary authority were not supported by any legal evidence. There was an over-reliance on a preliminary inquiry report whose contents had not been proved in the departmental inquiry. The witnesses behind that report were not examined, and the petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine them.
The Court also noted that in a related case (CWJC No. 16616 of 2021), another officer, Sunil Kumar, who faced identical charges based on the same City S.P. report of 13.02.2017 and was similarly dismissed, had his punishment set aside by the Patna High Court. In that case, the Court had held there was “no evidence” in the inquiry report or during inquiry to prove guilt, and granted 100% back wages and consequential benefits. The Court observed that, since the charges and material were identical, “uniformity demands uniform treatments”.
The Court also found it significant that while the City S.P.’s preliminary report suggested the SHO, Dhirendra Kumar Pandey, was central to the alleged illicit liquor trade, he was ultimately exonerated with only a caution (Annexure-20), whereas the petitioner, a subordinate ASI, suffered the extreme penalty of dismissal on the same basic material.
The Court then discussed a recent Supreme Court judgment in K. Prabhakar Hegde v. Bank of Baroda (Civil Appeal No. 6599 of 2025, decided on 19th August, 2025). There, the Supreme Court held that if a preliminary inquiry report is to be relied on in a departmental inquiry, the witnesses whose evidence formed that report must be produced before the Enquiry Officer for cross-examination, and the report itself must be supplied to the delinquent employee. A preliminary report, especially if based on material collected behind the employee’s back, cannot be the sole basis of guilt in the final inquiry.
Applying this to the present case, the Patna High Court held that the impugned dismissal and appellate orders were in “complete breach of the principle of natural justice”.
Further, the Court criticised the impugned dismissal order as cryptic and lacking reasons. It did not show any application of mind to the petitioner’s reply to the second show cause notice. The appellate order also failed to discuss or consider the specific grounds raised, contrary to Rule 27 of the Rules, 2005, which lays down the duty of the appellate authority.
In conclusion, the Court held that the memo of charge lacked clear and distinct imputations, the inquiry findings were unsupported by legal evidence, the Presenting Officer had failed in his role, and the punishment and appellate orders were perverse, non-speaking and violative of natural justice.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court set aside the dismissal order dated 02.06.2020 (Memo No. 173) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna, as well as the appellate order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Bihar, Patna. The writ petition was allowed and the Court directed that, once the impugned orders are set aside, the “consequences shall follow”, meaning service and monetary benefits must be restored as per law. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for police personnel and all government servants facing departmental proceedings in Bihar. It shows that even in cases involving serious allegations like illegal liquor trade, the authorities must follow proper procedure and basic fairness.
The Patna High Court stressed that charges must be specific, evidence must be properly proved in the inquiry, and the delinquent employee must be allowed to cross-examine key witnesses. Relying solely on a preliminary inquiry report, without examining its author and witnesses, is not permitted.
The decision also warns departments that an Enquiry Officer cannot act as both judge and prosecutor. The Presenting Officer must present the case, and the Enquiry Officer must remain impartial.
For other employees, the case shows that appellate authorities must seriously examine the grounds of appeal and give reasons. A simple confirmation of the punishment without reasons can be struck down.
Overall, the judgment reinforces that natural justice and the procedure under Rule 17 and Rule 27 of the Rules, 2005 are not formalities. They protect livelihoods and must be strictly observed before imposing the harsh penalty of dismissal.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the departmental inquiry and dismissal of the petitioner complied with Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 and principles of natural justice.
Answer: No. The memo of charge lacked clear and distinct imputations, key witnesses were not examined, the petitioner’s right to cross-examination was denied, and the inquiry relied improperly on an unproved preliminary report. - Issue: Whether the Enquiry Officer and disciplinary authorities’ findings were supported by legal evidence.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the findings were based on no legal evidence, resting only on a preliminary report whose contents were never proved in the inquiry. - Issue: Whether the dismissal and appellate orders could stand in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Answer: No. The Court held that the orders were perverse, cryptic, showed non-application of mind, violated Rule 27 regarding appellate duty, and therefore had to be set aside. The writ petition was allowed and consequences of setting aside the orders were directed to follow.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors, (2009) 2 SCC 570
- Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2013) 4 SCC 465
- Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors, (2010) 13 SCC 427
- Panchanan Kumar v. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors, 1996 (1) PLJR 401
- D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259 : 1994 (1) PLJR 55 (SC)
- State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772
- Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors v. Jai Bhagwan, (2011) 6 SCC 376
- Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610
- State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491 : AIR 1977 SC 1512
- Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, (2025) 4 SCC 111
- Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank, (2021) 3 SCC 806
- Om Prakash Sah v. State of Bihar & Ors, LPA No. 34 of 2014 (Patna High Court)
- Anuj Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors, CWJC No. 6409 of 2016 (Patna High Court)
- Ras Bihari Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors, CWJC No. 8664 of 2017 (Patna High Court)
- Arun Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors, CWJC No. 8955 of 2015 (Patna High Court)
- K. Prabhakar Hegde v. Bank of Baroda, Civil Appeal No. 6599 of 2025, judgment dated 19.08.2025 (Supreme Court of India)
- CWJC No. 16616 of 2021, Patna High Court (case of Sunil Kumar, related departmental proceeding)
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2615 of 2021
Case Title: Sarwon Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 337
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Date of Judgment: 22-08-2025
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Senior Advocate; Mr. Shubham Priyadarshi, Advocate
- For the Respondents (State): Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging dismissal from service and appellate order in departmental proceedings against a Bihar Police ASI.
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.
