Bhola Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3 Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, A.C. to AAG-3

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR C.A.V. JUDGMENT

¶17

Date : 10-12-2025

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no.731 dated 16.06.2021 issued under the signature of the Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur, by which punishment of stoppage of increment of salary for two years with non-cumulative effect has been inflicted upon the petitioner. The petitioner has further

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 2/27

¶20

challenged the order as contained in memo no.558 dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, in exercise of power under Rule 853A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978, by which the aforesaid punishment order 16.06.2021 was set aside and petitioner was reverted to the basic pay scale of Police Sub Inspector for five years and the petitioner was debarred from being posted as S.H.O. for 10 years and it was further directed that during suspension period the petitioner shall only be paid the subsistence allowance. Lastly, the prayer has been made to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner on his earlier position with all consequential benefits.

¶21

2 . The present case emanates from a seizure of approximately 4767.22 liters of illicit liquor from the vicinity of Sursand Police Station within the District of Sitamarhi, which was carried out by the A.L.T.F. (Excise Department), based on which, Sursand P.S. Case No.390 of 2020 dated 13.12.2020 was registered under sections 414, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under section section 30(a), 36 and 41 of the Bihar Excise Act.

¶22

3 . The thrust of allegation against the petitioner is that he failed to gather intelligence and carry out the

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 3/27

¶24

provisions of the Bihar Excise Act. Based on the recovery of illicit liquor from the vicinity of Sursand police station, the F.I.R. was registered and the petitioner was placed under suspension vide District Order No.1547 of 2020 dated 29.12.2020 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Subsequently, memo of charge along with list of documents and witnesses were served upon the petitioner on 05.01.2021. The petitioner submitted his response / defence on 01.03.2021. The respondent authorities sought for the last defence of the petitioner which was submitted by him on 06.04.2021. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority - I.G. Tirhut Range, who issued a second show-cause to the petitioner based on the aforesaid enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his explanation thereto on 07.05.2021. The disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 16.06.2021 agreeing with the enquiry report has passed the order of punishment whereby the punishment of stoppage of increment of salary for two years with non-cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.

¶25

4 . It would be relevant to quote the impugned order dated 16.06.2021 by which the punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner, which reads as under:-

¶26

lhrke<+h ftyk foHkkxh; tk¡p ¼dk;Zokgh½

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025

¶28

4/27

¶29

la[;k&02@2021 fo#) iqåfuå Hkksyk dqekj flag] lhrke<+h ftyk cy dh lafpdk esa x.ks'k dqekj ¼Hkkåiqålså½ iqfyl egkfujh{kd] frjgqr {ks=] eqt¶Qjiqj dk ikfjr vkns'k%& vipkjh iqåfuå Hkksyk dqekj flag] lhrke<+h ftyk cy ds fo#) e|fu"ks| dkuwu ds fØ;kUo;u] vklwpuk ladyu esa cjrh x;h mnklhurk ,oa ?kksj ykijokgh dk vkjksi bl vk/kkj ij yxk;k x;k gS fd%&

¶30

01- tc vipkjh iqåfuå&lg&Fkkuk/;{k lqjl.M ds in ij inLFkkfir Fks] rks% iqfyl egkfujh{kd ¼e|fu"ks/k½] fcgkj] iVuk dk i= la[;k&524 ¼vfHk;ku½ 20&1415@e|fu"ks/k ¼xkså½] fnukad&18-12-2020 ds }kjk lhrke<+h ftyk esa fnukad 12-12-2020 dks e|fu"ks/k bdkbZ] fcgkj] iVuk dks çkIr xqIr lwpuk ds vkyksd esa e|fu"ks/k dh Vhe ,oa ALTF ds lkFk voS/k 'kjkc dh cjkenxh gsrq lajl.M&iqijh eq[; ekxZ ij Fkkuk ls ek= 2-5 fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij xzke foj[kk ds ukxsUæ egrks ds ckyw flesUV dh nqdku esa Nkikekjh dj d Vªd ,oa vU; 04 okgu ls dqy fons'kh 'kjkc 522 dkVZu ¼dqy&4617-78 yhVj½ ds lkFk ';keckcw lkg dks fxj¶rkj fd;k x;k ,oa ';keckcw lkg ds fu'kkunsgh ij ek= 1-5 fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij fLFkr xzke cukSyh ds jkeukFk Bkdqj ds xSjst esa Nkikekjh dj 05 okgu lfgr 149-74 yhVj fons'kh 'kjkc ds lkFk nks O;fä 01ekså lyker ,oa 02- ekså vuh'k dks fxj¶rkj fd;k x;kA mijksä rhuksa fxj¶rkj O;fä;ksa ds fu'kkunsgh ij Fkkuk ls ek= vk/kk fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij fLFkr iadt Bkdqj ds ?kj esa Nkikekjh dj 08 cksry fons'kh 'kjkc ds lkFk iadt Bkdqj dks fxj¶rkj fd;k x;kA bl çdkj dqy 4767-22 yhVj fons'kh 'kjkc cjken dj tIr fd;k x;kA bl laca/k esa lqjl.M Fkkuk dk.M la[;k&390@2020] fnukad&1312-2020] /kkjk&414@467@468@471@120¼ch½ Hkkå nåfoå ,oa 30 ¼,½@36@41¼1½ fcgkj e|fu"ks/k ,oa mRikn vf/kfu;e ntZ fd;k x;kA

¶31

02- iqfyl eq[;ky; dk i= l[;ka &63 ¼01½ fØ;kUo;u½ 2019&20&1296@e|fu"k/k]s fnukda &24-11-2020 e Hkh ;g vknsa 'k fufgr gs S fd “ ;fn fdlh Fkkuk {k= es jkT; Lrj@ftyksa Lrj ij çkIr vklwpukvksa ds vk/kkj ij jkT;@ftyk Lrj l çfrfu;qfä Nkikekjh nys d }kjk vos /k 'kjkc dkS cjkenxh dh tkrh gs S rk ,s ls ekeyks sa esa lca f/kr Fkkuk/;{k da }kjks vko';d dkjokbZ ughZ djua ds fy, nks "kh ekus s tk;xsa rFkk muds bl foQyrk ,os fuf"Ø;rka d fy, dBks j dkuwuh ,os vuq'kklfud dkja okbZ Z

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 5/27

¶33

dju dk çko/kku gs AS

¶34

mä ifjis{; esa e|fu"ks/k dkuwu ds fØ;kUo;u ,oa vklwpuk ladyu esa cjrh x;h mnklhurk ,oa ?kksj ykijokgh ds vkjksi esa iqåfuå Hkksyk dqekj flag] Fkkuk/;{k] lqjl.M] ftyk&lhrke<+h dks rRdky çHkko ls fuyafcr djrs gq, foHkkxh; tk¡p ¼dk;Zokgh½ çkjaHk djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA

¶35

bl dk;kZy; dk vkns'k Kkikad&27@xkså] fnukad&12-01-2021 ds }kjk iqåfuå Hkksyk dqekj flag ds fo:) lhrke<+h ftyk foHkkxh; tkap ¼dk;Zokgh½ la[;k&02@2021 çkjaHk fd;k x;kA bl foHkkxh; t‚p ¼dk;Zokgh½ esa t‚p çkf/kdkj ds :i esa Jh jkts'k dqekj] uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd] eqt¶Qjiqj dks rFkk çLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh ds :i esa iqåfuå vfHkuUnu eaMy] vkså,låMhå eqt¶Qjiqj dks çkf/k—r fd;k x;kA

¶36

bl foHkkxh; tk¡p ¼dk;Zokgh½ ds lapkyuksijkUr Jh jkts'k dqekj] uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd] eqt¶Qjiqj }kjk vius dk;kZy; Kkikad&2192@xkså] fnukad&10-05-2021 ds ek/;e ls “ iqåfuå Hkksyk dqekj flag ds fo:) vopkj ds fy, eSa bUgsa nks"kh ikrk gw¡A ” dk earO; ds lkFk lafpdk vafre vkns'k gsrq v/kksgLrk{kjh dks çsf"kr dh xbZ gSA

¶37

euS s Hkh lfpdk ea sa miyC/k vkjki]s çn'k] lkf{k;kZ dk c;ku] vipkjh }kjk lefisa rZ Li"Vhdj.k] lpkyu inkf/kdkjh }kjk lefia rZ erO; dk voyka du fd;kA voyks duks ijks Ur ik;k x;k fd 'kjkccnh da lQy fØ;ks Uo;u grq Fkkuk{ks = es sa vo/k 'kjkc lS s lca f/kra vklwpuk ldyu] cjkenxh@Nkikekjh ,oa a 'kjkc dkjkokfj;ks ij iwsa .k:i lZ vs dq'k yxkua s e vipkjh iqåfuå Hkksa yk dqekj fls g rRdkyhua Fkkuk/;{k lqjl.M v{ke fl) gq, gAS

¶38

fofHkUu frfFk;ksa dks çf"kr vkns 'kks sa d }kjk lHkh Fkkuk/;{kks dksa iws .k 'kjkccZ nh dha fn'kk esa vklwpuk ldyu djra s gq, dkjokbZ Z grq vkns f'kr fd;k x;k gs A Fkkuk{kS = ls vos /kS 'kjkc dh cjkenxh d fy, ls ca f/kr Fkkuk/;{ka lh/k fts Eeokj gks rs gs A e|fu"kS /k dh Vhe ,os a ALTF ds }kjk Fkkuk ls ek= 1-5 ,oa 2-5 fdykehVj dh nwjh ls s brus vf/kd ek=k esa vo/k 'kjkc dh cjkenxh vipkjh iqåfuå HkkS yks dqekj flg dh viua s Fkkuk esa vklwpuk ldfyr djua rFkk çHkkoh fu;s =a .k e foQyrksa

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 6/27

¶40

dks n'kkrk gZ A vidkjh }kjk lefiS r vZ frea cpko Li"Vhdj.k dk vls rka "ktud ik;k x;kAs

¶41

vr,o lE;d fopkjksijkUr tk¡p çkf/kdkj ds earO; ls lger gksrs gq, lhrke<+h ftyk foHkkxh; tk¡p ¼dk;Zokgh½ la[;k&02@2021 esa yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds fy, fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh&2005 ds Hkkx& V ds fu;e&14 esa fufgr çko/kku ds rgr vipkjh iqåfuå Hkksyk dqekj flag dk vxys 02¼nks½ o"kksaZ dk osru o`f) ij jksd yxk;k tkrk gS] ftldk çHkko vlap;kRed gksxkA

¶42

iqfyl egkfujh{kd] frjgqr {ks=] eqt¶QjiqjA

¶43

5. Being aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 16.06.201, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the Additional Director General of Police (Budget, Appeal and Welfare), Bihar, Patna on 24.08.2021. Since no decision was taken by the respondent authorities on the revocation of suspension of the petitioner and the prolonged pendency of the aforesaid departmental appeal, the petitioner preferred a writ petition viz. C.W.J.C. No.5601 of 2022. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition and also the departmental appeal, the D.G.P. Bihar in exercise of powers under Rule 853A (a) of the Bihar Police Manual, has issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner for enhancement of punishment. In pursuance of the said show-cause notice, the petitioner filed his reply. However, the D.G.P. Bihar vide impugned order dated 08.09.2022 quashed the earlier

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 7/27

¶45

punishment order dated 16.06.2021 and enhanced the punishment imposed upon the petitioner to the following extent :-

¶46

“ f cgkj iqfyl gLrd d fu;e 853v ds rgrs leh{kk ,o ikfjr vkna 'k s

¶47

Jh Hkksyk dqekj flag] iqåfuå ds fo:) lapkfyr mä foHkkxh; tk¡p ¼dk;Zokgh½ esa vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkj lg&iqfyl egkfujh{kd] frjgqr {ks=] eqt¶Qjiqj }kjk vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkus ds i'pkr vipkjh dks fuyacu ls eqä djus ds fcUnq ij leh{kk ds Øe esa e|fu"ks/k çHkkx] iqfyl eq[;ky;] fcgkj] iVuk ds lafpdk laå&524 ¼lhrke<+h½ 2020 esa vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkj }kjk nh x;h ltk dks vkjksi dh rqyuk esa lekuqikfrd çrhr ugha gksus ds dkj.k mä foådkå dk fcgkj iqfyl gLrd ds fu;e 8533 ds rgr leh{kk djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA ftlds vkyksd esa foådkå dh ewy lafpdk eaxkdj fcgkj iqfyl eq[;ky;] iVuk esa leh{kk dh x;hA leh{kksijkUr iqfyl eq[;ky; ds i= laå&336@ihå&1] fnå&09-06-2022 }kjk Jh flag ls ltk esa o`n~…gSA vipkjh ds fo:) e|fu"ks/k dkuwu ds fØ;kUo;u ,oa vklwpuk ladyu esa mnklhurk cjrus ds dkj.k Fkkuk{ks= ls Hkkjh ek=k esa 'kjkc cjken gksus ls lacaf/kr xaHkhj ç—fr dk vkjksi çekf.kr ik;k x;k gSA vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkj }kjk vipkjh dks nh x;h ltk vkjksi dh rqyuk esa cgqr de gSA vr% lHkh rF;ksa ij fopkj djrs gq;s fcgkj iqfyl gLrd ds fu;e 853v ds rgr leh{kksijkUr Jh Hkksyk dqekj flag] iqfyl fujh{kd lg&rRdkyhu Fkkuk/;{k] lqjlaM Fkkuk] lhrke<+h dks muds fo:) lapkfyr lhrke<+h ftyk foHkkxh; tk¡p ¼dk;Zokgh½ laå&02@2021 esa yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds fy;s nks"kh ikrs gq;s fuEu n.M vf/kjksfir fd;k tkrk gS &

¶48

i - lhrke<+h ftyk foHkkxh; tk¡p ¼dk;Zokgh½ laå&02@2021 esa vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkj lg&iqfyl egkfujh{kd] frjgqr {ks=] eqt¶Qjiqj ds Kkikad&731@xkså] fnå&16-06-2021 }kjk ikfjr naMkns'k dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶49

ii - vipkjh Jh flag dks lap;kRed çHkko ls 05 ¼ik¡p½ o"kksaZ ds fy;s iqfyl voj fujh{kd dh dksfV esa ewy osru ij çR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶50

iii - vipkjh Jh flag dks vkns'k fuxZr dh frfFk ls vxys 10 o"kksaZ rd Fkkuk/;{k ds in ij inLFkkfir ugha fd;k tk;sxkA

¶51

iv - vipkjh Jh flag fuyEcu vof/k esa tks dqN çkIr dj pqds gSa mlds vfrfjä dqN ns; ugha

¶52

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 8/27

¶53

gksxkA

¶54

vipkjh Jh flag dks vkns'k fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ls fuyacu ls eqä fd;k tkrk gS ”

¶55

6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the

¶56

petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a diligent police officer and during his tenure from 11.08.2019 till his suspension i.e. 17.12.2020 he has lodged 47 cases under the Bihar Excise Act and recovered huge quantities of illicit liquor and also seized multiple vehicles. Further, the petitioner has apprehended and arrested 39 persons under the Bihar Excise Act. Therefore, it is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority that there is grave dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner to carry out the complete ban on illicit liquor under the provisions of the Bihar Excise Act is totally misplaced and misconceived. Moreover, mere recovery of illicit liquor from the vicinity of the Sursand Police Station would not ipso facto amount to guilt or dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner particularly in absence of any allegation of connivance or complicity.

¶57

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before serving the memo of charge no showcause notice was served upon the petitioner and straightway a departmental proceeding was initiated and the petitioner was

¶58

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 9/27

¶59

placed under suspension. He further submits that the disciplinary authority while issuing the second show-cause after submission of the enquiry report has not served a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, thereby preventing the petitioner from effectively defending himself on the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.

¶60

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there are only two witnesses, that too formal witnesses in the departmental proceeding and they have only identified the signatures of the respective senior officers. Moreover, the aforesaid two witnesses were not even present at the place of occurrence during the raid.

¶61

9. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the departmental appeal and the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.5601 of 2022, the D.G.P. Bihar exercise s uo moto revisional jurisdiction under Rule 853A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual and issued a showcause for enhancement of punishment which had already been imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 16.06.2021. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the D.G.P. Bihar without

¶62

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 10/27

¶63

considering the response submitted by the petitioner has passed the impugned order dated 08.09.2022, by which the punishment was enhanced.

¶64

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the D.G.P. Bihar as having been grossly barred by limitation since the earlier order imposing punishment was passed on 16.06.2021 whereas, the D.G.P. Bihar taking sou moto revision had passed the impugned order enhancing the punishment on 09.06.2022 i.e. almost after a lapse of one year, which is in teeth of Rule 28 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.

¶65

11. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that both, the impugned punishment order as well as the revisional orders are bad in law since the submissions advanced by the petitioner was not considered by the authorities.

¶66

12. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein the respondents have supported the impugned order enhancing the punishment of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent State that the petitioner failed to perform his duty in accordance with the provisions of law, inasmuch as, the petitioner miserably failed in intelligence collection which is an imperative police function with respect of enforcing the complete ban on illicit liquor and

¶67

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 11/27

¶68

for enforcing the provisions of the Bihar Excise Act.

¶69

13. The learned counsel for the respondent State has also submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner and the entire disciplinary proceedings has been carried in accordance with law. It is emphasized by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner was duly allowed to place his questions for cross-examination and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. After considering the totality of materials the order imposing the punishment was passed, which the petitioner had assailed under appeal.

¶70

14. It is submitted by the respondent State that during the process to decide on the release of delinquentpetitioner from suspension, the entire case was reviewed at the level of Police Headquarters under Rule 853A(a). Since the order imposing punishment was found to be not commensurate with the gravity of allegations levelled, which was found proved against the petitioner, the D.G.P. Bihar in exercise of the powers under Rule 853A(a) has initiated suo moto revision and issued a show cause to the petitioner regarding enhancement of the punishment. It is submitted that thereafter the entire case records were considered and reviewed including the defence of the petitioner which was found to be inadequate and unacceptable

¶71

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 12/27

¶72

and therefore in view of the gross negligence and dereliction of duty, the punishment of the petitioner was enhanced and the earlier order imposing punishment was quashed by the D.G.P, Bihar.

¶73

15. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent State that Rule 853A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978 empowers the D.G.P, Bihar to be the competent authority, to review any proceeding against a policemen at any stage and pass appropriate orders as he may deem fit and proper. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent State that the impugned order by which the D.G.P, Bihar had enhanced the punishment of the petitioner is clearly in exercise of the powers under Rule 853A and suffers from no illegality.

¶74

16. Considered the submissions advanced by the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶75

17. In the present case, the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner has been initiated owing to the huge recovery of illicit liquor from the vicinity of the Police Station where the petitioner was posted as S.H.O. Heavy reliance has been placed on a letter / direction issued vide letter no.63 (01-Implementation) 2019-20-1296 / Excise, dated

¶76

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 13/27

¶77

24.11.2020 which has been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

¶78

(C.W.J.C. No. 737 of 2023) and has observed as under -

¶79

“31. At this stage, this Court would reproduce paragraph ‘3’ of the letter no 63 ( 01 fdz;kU;o;u ) 2019-20-1296/ e|fu’ks/k dated 24.11.2020 as

¶80

under:-

¶81

“ 3- ;fn fdlh Fkkuk {ks= esa jkT; Lrj@ftyk Lrj ij izkIr vklwpukvksa ds vk/kkj ij jkT;@ftyk Lrj ls izfrfu;qDr Nkkikekjh ny ds }kjk voS/k “kjkc dh cjkenxh dh tkrh gSa rks ,sls ekeyksa ls lacaf/kr Fkkuk/;{k ,oa pkSdhnkjh ij vklwpuk ladyu ugha djus rFkk vko”;d dkjZokbZ ugha djus ds fy, nks’kh ekus tk;saxs rFkk muds bl foQyrk ,oa fuf’Ø;rk ds fy;s dBksj dkuwuh ,oa vuq”kklfud dkjZokbZ dh tk;A ”

¶82

32. In fact, the enquiry officer has referred the aforesaid paragraph in his enquiry report to conclude the guilt against the petitioner.

¶83

The Concept of deemed guilty

¶84

33. Advanced Law Laxicon, 3^rd Edition, Volume 2 D- I Reprint 2009 the word ‘Deemed’ has been described as under:-

¶85

“Deems means ‘is of opinion’ or ‘considers’ or ‘decides’ and there is no implication of steps to be taken before the opinion is formed or the decision is taken.” (R.v. Brixion Prison Governor ex p. Soblen, 1963 2QB 243 : (1962) 3 All ER 641. The true synonym for the word

¶86

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025

¶87

14/27

¶88

‘deemed’ is ‘judged’ and the other shades of meaning came later. Whenever the word ‘deemed’ is used in statute in relation to a person or thing, it implies that the legislature after due consideration exercised its judgment in conferring that status or attribute toa person or thing. M.R. Mehhotra v. State, AIR 1958 All 492, 498.”

¶89

34. Upon going through the entire materials as discussed hereinabove, this Court has no iota of doubt that there was an inherent defect in the framing of charge itself inasmuch as a bare perusal of it would show that it has been framed on the direction of the Director General of Police, Bihar vide his letter no.48 dated 29.11.2020 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police (Annexure ‘1’ to the writ application). In this letter the Director General of Police has referred his own direction contained in letter no. 63 dated 24.11.2022, paragraph ‘3’ whereof pre-judges the guilt of the S.H.O. and the Chowkidar in case of recovery of illicit liquor from the area of the police station. This has no statutory sanction. Once the Director General of Police issued this direction to the S.S.P., the S.S.P./S.P. had no opportunity to apply his own independent mind as to whether the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against or of the kind of charges may be framed against him. The direction was coming from the top of the police

¶90

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 15/27

¶91

echelon as if on mere recovery of illicit liquor of 25 liters from the Kankarbagh Police Station area, the Officer-in-Charge of the said police station is liable to be held guilty.

¶92

35. In the opinion of this Court, paragraph ‘3’ of the letter no. 63 (01 fdz;kU;o;u ) 2019-20-1296/ e|fu’k/ks dated 24.11.2020 which has influenced the entire proceeding right from the beginning, paragraph ‘3’ raises a presumption of guilt even before framing of charge, therefore, this Court has no iota of doubt in saying that the guilt of the employee has been assumed and presumed even before giving him an opportunity of hearing. Such presumption of guilt has no sanction of law and the same is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contrary to the principles of fair play in action.

¶93

36. This Court has already noticed that in course of enquiry only two departmental witnesses came and they proved only the signature of the concerned authorities on the order. There is not a single witness to say as to how the petitioner may be said to have acted negligently and because of his failure to collect information and implementation of the prohibition laws in Kankarbagh area, illegal operation of Bhatti or factory or illegal sale of liquor has taken place. Not a single example has been cited in course of enquiry to demonstrate that during the period of service of the petitioner, repeated recoveries were made from the same area.

¶94

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 16/27

¶95

xxxxx

¶96

42. Before this Court parts with this order, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, this court directs the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna (respondent No. 4) to revisit paragraph ‘3’ of the letter no. 63 (01 fdz;kU;o;u ) 2019-201296/ e| fu’k/ks dated 24.11.2020 which assumes and pre-judges the guilt against the Station House Officer and Chowkidar even before framing of charge and conduct of an independent enquiry. This has no sanction of law. Because of this stipulation in this case the whole proceeding right from framing of charge has been influenced and a serious prejudice has been caused to the petitione r.” (Emphasis Supplied)

¶97

18. Subsequently again another coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 29.10.2024 passed in the case of Mukesh Kumar Paswan vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C No. 8071 of 2023) has held as under -

¶98

“16. The main issue involved in the present writ petition is, as to whether, the Disciplinary Authority, who has to take decision in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 17, C.C.A. Rules, 2005, can even before initiation of the Departmental Proceeding can be said to have been influenced by Letter No. 63 (01 implementation) 201920-1296/Excise Prohibition dated

¶99

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025

¶100

17/27

¶101

24.11.2020 and the Suspension Order passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar, particularly paragraph no. 3 raises a presumption of guilt even before framing of charge and giving opportunity of post decisional hearing is violative principle of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution of India ?

¶102

17. To answer the above question, I find it proper to reproduce following paragraphs of the suspension order no. 21/2021-142 dated 01.02.2021, which is, inter alia, as follows:

¶103

“ fcgkj esa iw.kZ “kjkccanh ykxw gksus ds ckotwn Fkkuk {ks= esa voS/k :i ls ckbZikl Fkkuk ls ek= 500 ehVj dh nwjh ij vofLFkr xksnke ls “kjkc dh cjkenxh gksuk Fkkuk/;{k] ckbZikl Fkkuk dh vklwpuk ladyu esa iw.kZ:i ls foQyrk gSA mDr ifjizs{; esa iq0fu0 eqds”k dqekj ikloku] Fkkuk/;{k] ckbZikl Fkkuk ( iVuk ) rFkk FkkuklFkkuh; pkSdhnkj 1@2 yYyw ikloku }kjk e| fu’ks/k dkuwu ds fdz;kUo;u ,oa vklwpuk ladyu esa cjrh x;h mnklhurk ,oa ?kksj ykijokgh ds dkj.k buds Fkkuk {ks= esa voS/k “kjkc dh HkaMkj.k ,oa fcdzh /kMYys ls gks jgh gSA ;s vius Fkkuk {ks= ds “kjkc dkjksckfj;ksa ij iw.kZ:i ls vadq”k yxkus esa v>e ik;s x;s gSA fcgkj iqfyl eq[;ky; ( e|fu’ks/k izHkkx ) ] fcgkj] iVuk dk i= la[;k&63 ( 01 fdz;kUo;u ) 2019&20&1296@e|fu’ks/k] fnukad&24-11-2020 esa ;g Hkh vkns”k fufgr gS fd ;fn fdlh Fkkuk {ks= esa jkT; Lrj@ftyk Lrj ij izkIr vklwpukvksa ds vk/kkj ij jkT;@ftyk Lrj ls izfrfu;qDr Nkikekjh ny ds }kjk voS/k “kjkc dh cjkenxh dh tkrh gS rks ,sls ekeyksa esa lacaf/kr Fkkuk/;{k ,oa pkSdhnkj ij vklwpuk ladyu ugha djus rFkk vko”;d dkjZokbZ ugha djus ds fy, nks’kh ekus tk;saxs rFkk muds bl foQyrk ,oa fuf’dz;rk ds fy;s dBksj dkuwuh ,oa vuq”kklfud dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA** vr% mDr ifjizs{; esa e|fu’ks/k dkuwu ds

¶104

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025

¶105

18/27

¶106

fdz;kUo;u ,oa vklwpuk ladyu esa cjrh x;h mnklhurk ,oa ?kksj ykijokgh ds vkjksi esa iq0fu0 eqds”k dqekj ikloku] Fkkuk/;{k] ckbZikl Fkkuk ( iVuk ) ,oa LFkkuh; Fkkuk ds pkSdhnkj 1@2& yYyw ikloku dks rRdky izHkko ls fuyafcr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh izkjaHk djus dk vkns”k fn;k tkrk gSA d`r dkjZokbZ ,oa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la[;k ls voxr djk;saxsA

¶107

18. I have perused the pleadings made in the writ petition and the counter affidavit and entire material on record, I find that from the bare perusal of the charge memo, it would show that it has been framed on the direction of the Director General of Police, Bihar, who, vide Letter No. 142 dated 01.02.2021, had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) by referring his direction contained in Letter No. 63 (01 implementation) 2019-201296/Excise Prohibition dated 24.11.2020 that in case of recovery of illicit liquor from any police station’s territorial jurisdiction, the concerned Station House Officer (S.H.O) would be held guilty and strict action is required against him. Following the condition contained in Letter No. 63 dated 24.11.2020, the Director General of Police, had suspended the petitioner vide order contained in Letter No. 21/2021142 dated 01.02.2021 resulting into passing of the Penalty Order by the Disciplinary Authority. (Emphasis

¶108

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 19/27

¶109

supplied”

¶110

19. The aforesaid co-ordinate Bench of this

¶111

Court in Mukesh Kumar Paswan (Supra) placing reliance on the earlier judgment of this Court in Ajay Kumar (Supra) and upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Neemuch vs. Mahadeo real Estate and Ors. reported as (2019) 10 SCC 738 and H.L. Trehan and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported as AIR 1989 SC 568 had held as under:-

¶112

“22. I further find that the Post Decisional hearing is one with close mind and it is a fact that it is detrimental in nature and it would be a formality in case it is done with a prejudiced mind with pre-supposed decision of awarding the punishment and hence post decisional hearing would not be as effective. Furthermore, the basic prospect of natural justice requires pre decisional hearing and not post decisional hearing and the law granting post decisional hearing has been well settled by the Apex Court by holding that if the authorities have taken decision to take action before initiation of departmental proceeding, granting post decisional hearing will only be held to be an empty formality calling for violation of principle of natural justice.

¶113

23. In the present case, the Director General of Police with pre-determined mind had observed that strict disciplinary action is required to be taken against the petitioner in accordance with

¶114

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 20/27

¶115

Letter No. 63 (01 implementation) 2019-201296/Excise Prohibition dated 24.11.2020, which resulted into passing of penalty order against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority who with pre conceived mind took decision to impose penalty in compliance of the letter of the Director General of Police. The facts also reveals that the statement of the witnesses has not been recorded in the manner prescribed and in this regard it would be gainful to refer the case of Union of India and Ors. v/s P. Thayangarajan , reported in (1999) SCC 733 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “the conducting officer of the enquiry has to record the statement of the witness himself in the presence of the parties and the same cannot be done in any other manner.” The facts further reveals that for similar charges show cause was issued to one Chaukidar, namely, Lalu Paswan was also suspended along with the petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges by the Senior Superintendent of Police vide order contained in Memo No. 1761 dated 03.02.2022, the same also calls for interference in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Man Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2008) 12 SCC 331 , wherein the Apex Court observed in paragraph no. 20, which is, inter alia, reproduced hereinafter:

¶116

“20. We may reiterate the settled position of law for the benefit of the administrative authorities that

¶117

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025

¶118

21/27

¶119

any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could ever have made it. The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of State action. It would extend to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of right, but also in the matter of imposing liability upon him. Equals have to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of equality is now turned as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a governmental action. The administrative action is to be just on the test of “fair play” and reasonableness.”

¶120

The Apex Court in the case of RajendraYadav vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 , has held, inter alia, as under:

¶121

“9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even

¶122

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025

¶123

22/27

¶124

among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among codelinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of codelinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.”

¶125

24. I further find it apt to observe here that no documents as such has been proved against the petitioner which goes to show that there exists guilt on the part of the present petitioner. It is a well settled principle of law that gathering evidence by way of enquiry with an intention to support the pre decisional punishment will just emphasize the matter and the same is also against the principle of Natural Justice. In the case of State of Punjab vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 ,

¶126

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 23/27

¶127

the Apex Court has held as under:

¶128

"......sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case......";

¶129

“Since the foundation of initiation of the departmental proceeding and its conduct have been shown to be entirely illegal, the foundation has to be necessarily removed, as a result of which the structure/work of punishment given to this writ petitioner stood, is bound to fall.”

¶130

25. A similar methodology was employed by the Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (1981) 1 SCC 664 where a void administrative choice was approved by post-decisional hearing. An order assuming control over the administration of an organization by the Government without earlier notice or hearing was held to be bad as it abused the audi alteram partem rule. Be that as it may, the Court approved the impugned order on the grounds that the Government had consented to give post-decisional hearing.

¶131

xxxx

¶132

27. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by the Apex Court referred in above paragraphs, I find that

¶133

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 24/27

¶134

even though the petitioner was proceeded as per the provision of C.C.A. Rules, 2005 and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, in view of the conditions/directions contained in Letter No. 63 (01 implementation) 2019-20-1296/Excise Prohibition dated 24.11.2020 of the Director General of Police, in my opinion, the authorities had pre-determined to impose penalty on the petitioner and proceeded to hold quasi judicial inquiry giving the post-decisional opportunity of hearing which does not sub serve the rule of natural justice and is contrary to the principle of fair play. The authority who embarks upon a post decisional hearing will naturally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting a proper consideration of the representation at such a post-decisional opportunity…. ” (emphasis supplied).

¶135

20. From the conspectus of the aforesaid two exhaustive decisions of the coordinate Benches of this Court is that the administrative authority acting in the capacity of a quasi-judicial authority can not enter and undertake a disciplinary proceeding imposing punishment, much less, revise and substitute it with a much harsher punishment with a perdetermined mindset. The concept of strict liability by virtue of ‘deemed guilt’ of a public servant in absence of any cogent material establishing direct connivance, complicity, negligence

¶136

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 25/27

¶137

or involvement is totally alien to the service jurisprudence. A public servant, no doubt, has to act and perform the duties of his office diligently and to the best of his abilities, but territorial responsibility can not be ipso facto equated with strict liability or deemed guilt, in absence of negligence or laxity being deliberate, which is evidenced based on cogent materials available on record.

¶138

21. Now, turning to the facts of the present case, the basis of proceeding against the present petitioner is the recovery of huge amount of illicit liquor made from the vicinity of the police station. In the disciplinary proceedings, only two formal witnesses have been examined who have merely proved the signatures of the senior police officers. The documents adduced in the disciplinary proceedings are the F.I.R lodged by the petitioner himself and the order of suspension and its communication made by the Superintendent of Police. In the cumulative, it is evident that the only thread against the petitioner remains the fact that huge recovery was made from the jurisdiction of police station of which the petitioner was the in-charge and as such, a charge of dereliction of duty has been leveled. It is not discernible as to how these documents establish the guilt of the petitioner so far as his involvement / connivance

¶139

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 26/27

¶140

or his failure to gather police intelligence is concerned.

¶141

22. As already noted by the afore-quoted decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Ajay Kumar (supra) and Mukesh Kumar Paswan (supra), that deemed guilt can not be sustained particularly in cases where there is a total absence of material to establish the guilt, connivance, complicity, negligence or laxity of the petitioner, independently.

¶142

23. Further, in the present case, the Director General of Police had exercised his suo-moto revisional powers under Rule 853-A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual, whereby the punishment imposed has been enhanced. Even from the perusal of the aforesaid order dated 08.09.2022, it becomes clear that there are no materials on record that could have justified the imposition of the punishment, much less, enhancement of the punishment.

¶143

24. Accordingly, the present writ petition is

¶144

allowed.

¶145

25. The impugned orders contained in memo no.731 dated 16.06.2021 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur, by which punishment of stoppage of increment of salary for two years with non-

¶146

Patna High Court CWJC No.7478 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025 27/27

¶147

cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner, and the order as contained in memo no.558, dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar, are quashed and set aside.

¶148

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

¶149

pawan/-

¶150

AFR/NAFR	N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE	14.10.2025
Uploading Date	10.12.2025
Transmission Date

Bhola Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Aman Sethi Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Chander Singh and Anr. Vs State of Bihar

Ravi Shankar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Bir Bahadur Upadhyaya Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Sameer Vs The State of Bihar

Akhilesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar