Disposed¶13

Md. Jamaluddin Ansari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC8 Dec 2025CWJC/516/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

disciplinary punishment; withholding of two increments; cumulative effect; censure; major and minor penalties together; Rule 11 CCS Rules; Union of India & Anr. v. S.C. Parashar (2006) 3 SCC 167; CWJC No. 23825 of 2013 judgment dated 28.07.2025; General Administration Department Bihar; review petition rejected 30.11.2021; enquiry officer guilty limited extent; Bindeshar Paswan; mobile phone demand allegation; excessive penalty modified; promotion and arrears protected; Md. Jamaluddin Ansari; Patna High Court CWJC 516 of 2022

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with modification of punishment: major penalty reduced to withholding of two increments of pay for two years only, with cumulative effect removed; Court's observations not to affect promotion or payment of arrears. ¶13

Md. Jamaluddin Ansari Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner (withholding of two increments of pay with cumulative effect together with censure) is excessive and unsustainable in view of the enquiry findings. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Finding no direct allegation against the petitioner warranting the major penalty, the Court held the major penalty extremely excessive and modified it to withholding of two increments of pay only for two years, removing the cumulative effect from the punishment.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The Court clarified that its observations shall not obstruct the petitioner's promotion or the payment of his arrears in calculating his eligibility to receive payment.

¶12

Key takeaways

The Court expressly declined to pronounce on the censure component of the punishment, as its period had already been crossed.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral judgment of Dr. Anshuman, J. disposing CWJC No. 516 of 2022. Petitioner, punished by GAD, Government of Bihar (Respondent No. 2) vide order dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure-11) with withholding of two increments with cumulative effect plus censure (2019-20), and whose review petition dated 18.08.2021 was rejected on 30.11.2021 (Annexure-14), challenged both orders. Counsel relied on the Patna HC judgment dated 28.07.2025 in CWJC No. 23825 of 2013, which relied on Union of India & Anr. v. S.C. Parashar, (2006) 3 SCC 167 (para 8 quoted: even under a major-penalty procedure a minor penalty may be imposed). The Court found the enquiry officer had held the petitioner guilty only to a very limited extent (mobile-phone demand relayed through supporting staff Bindeshar Paswan, who admitted making the demand himself), saw no direct allegation warranting the major penalty, pronounced it extremely excessive, and modified it to withholding of two increments of pay for two years only, deleting the cumulative effect. The censure component was left undetermined as its period had already lapsed. Court clarified its observations would not hinder the petitioner's promotion or arrears eligibility.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.516 of 2022

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Md. Jamaluddin Ansari Son of Ali Haider Ansari, Resident of Mohalla - Hinduni Tola, Azad Nagar, P.O. - Phulwari Sharif, P.S. - Phulwari Sharif, District - Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Service, Home Department (Prisons), Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Director, Bihar Institute of Correctional Administration, Vaishali at Hajipur.

¶10

The Special Secretary - Cum - Inquiry Officer, Minor Water Resource Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

======================================================

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ali Muqtadin Ahmad, Advocate Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Advocate General Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, AC to AG ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date : 08-12-2025

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶17

learned counsel for the State.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed for the

¶19

following reliefs:-

¶20

For quashing the order issued vide Memo No. 16/ ववववध -0705/19 General Administration 4914,

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2022 dt.08-12-2025

¶22

2/7

¶23

Patna dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure11) by the Respondent No. 2 whereby and where under the petitioner has been imposed with the following punishment :-

¶24

a. Withholding of two increments of pay with cumulative effect.

¶25

b. Censure for the period of occurrence (2019-20).

¶26

ii. For quashing the order bearing Memo No. 16/ ववववध - 07-05/19 General Administration 14179, Patna dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure-14) whereby and whereunder the review petition dated 18.08.2021 filed by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 13.04.2021 has been rejected.

¶27

iii. The Petitioner further prays for issuance of writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/directions for the relief/reliefs which the Petitioner is entitled to in the fact and circumstances of the present case.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶29

the present case is the result of professional jealousy in the office, between the staff members. He further submits that the

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2022 dt.08-12-2025 3/7

¶31

petitioner became the scapegoat for a work which he had done unintentionally. He further submits that in the findings it has come that he has been punished only and only due to the reason that he had sent a staff member for the mobile phone of female Staff-A, but the said staff, due to the unavailability of female Staff-A, demanded the mobile phone of female Staff-B, for which the petitioner had already excused then and there. Even then, the higher authority has taken action and imposed punishment for the same.

¶32

He further submits that, according to him, the person who made the allegation against the petitioner, as mentioned in the charge memo, has not been examined or crossexamined. He further submits that the sole basis of his punishment is the recording made on another mobile phone, which was subjected to a forensic laboratory report in which his voice was attempted to be proved. He further submits that both minor and major punishments were imposed together.

¶33

He further submits that the alleged wrong is not of such high gravity that he should have been imposed major punishment, and this aspect has neither been considered by the disciplinary authority nor by the appellate authority. He further submits that the wrong alleged to have been committed by the

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2022 dt.08-12-2025 4/7

¶35

petitioner and the punishment imposed are excessive in nature, and, therefore, a sympathetic view may be taken into consideration as the petitioner is at recurring loss in his career.

¶36

Counsel further relied on the judgment dated 28.07.2025 passed in CWJC No. 23825 of 2013 and submits that this judgment has been passed by this Court relying on the judgment in Union of India & Anr. v. S.C. Parashar , reported in (2006) 3 SCC 167 , and submits that the ratio laid down in the case is that major and minor penalties cannot be imposed simultaneously, and therefore, submits that the writ petition be allowed in his favour.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority is completely in accordance with law. He further submits that there is no procedural mistake nor any violation of natural justice. He further submits that the punishment imposed is also not excessive and is a balanced one.

¶38

After going through the records of this case in comparison to the judgment on which the counsel for the petitioner relied, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment, i.e., para 8 of Union of India & Anr. v. S.C. Parashar ( supra ), is most relevant, which states as follows:-

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2022 dt.08-12-2025

¶40

5/7

¶41

“8. It is not in dispute that Sub-rules (iii) and (iii) (a) of Rule 11 provide for minor penalties whereas Clause (v) thereof provides for major penalty. Indisputably the procedure adopted in the departmental proceeding was for imposition of a major penalty. It is trite that even in a case where the procedure followed in the departmental proceedings for imposition of a major penalty, having regard to the facts and circumstances of a case, minor penalty can also be imposed. The question is as to whether the penalty imposed by the President upon taking into consideration the report filed by the Enquiry Officer, was under Clauses (iii) and (iii) (a) or Clause (v) of Rule 11 of the CCS Rules.”

¶42

Here, in the case on which the counsel for the petitioner relied, the enquiry officer had exonerated the petitioner, but in the present case the enquiry officer has not exonerated the petitioner, rather, he has held him guilty only and only to a very limited extent, namely, that the petitioner had demanded the personal mobile phone through another person from the complainant. However, the witness, Mr. Bindeshar

¶43

Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2022 dt.08-12-2025 6/7

¶44

Paswan, himself submits that the mobile phone which was said to have been demanded by the petitioner from the officer was not actually demanded by the petitioner rather, due to the absence of the said officer, he himself demanded it from the complainant. It is basically a mistake on the part of Bindeshar Paswan, a supporting staff of the office.

¶45

In light of the facts and circumstances, it transpires to this Court that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner that he has committed such wrong for which he has been given the major penalty, and it is for this reason this Court is of the firm view that the major penalty, by virtue of the charge, is extremely excessive. Therefore, the major penalty is hereby modified to withholding of two increments of pay only for two years, and the cumulative effect is hereby removed from the punishment.

¶46

It is made clear that the period of censure has already been crossed, therefore, this Court has not given its finding on that part.

¶47

It is made clear that such observation shall not come in the way of the petitioner’s promotion and payment of his arrears in the calculation of his eligibility to receive payment, which has not been made earlier due to the major

¶48

Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2022 dt.08-12-2025 7/7

¶49

penalty.

¶50