Raja Ram Singh vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6364 of 2023
CNR No. BRHC010355142023
======================================================
Raja Ram Singh Son of Bal Ram Singh Permanent resident of Village-
Maheshwara, Police Office-Bhataura, Police Station - Hathauri, District-
Samastipur (Bihar, Pin No. 848117, At present posted as Co-operative
Extension Officer, in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Madhubani Circle, Madhubani (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal secretary, Department of Co-
operative Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Secretary Department of Co-operative, Government of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Co-operative Department-cum- Appellate
Authority, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, New Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Registrar Co-operative Societies, Department of Co-operative,
government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
6. The Special Secretary, Department of Home, Old Secretariat, Patna.
7. The district Magistrate, Sitamarhi.
8. The Additional District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.
9. The Sub-Divisional Officer Sitamarhi.
10. The Circle Officer Parihar, District Sitamarhi.
11. The Police Station Incharge, Bela, District- Sitamarhi.
12. The District co-operative Officer, Muzaffarpur.
13. The District Magistrate Darbhanga.
14. The District Co-operative Officer, Darbhanga.
15. The District Co-operative Officer, Madhubani.
16. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Madhubani Circle,
Madhubani..
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Lal Das, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Balram Kapri, GP-27
Mr. Brahmputra Singh Ishu, AC to GP-27
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT

Patna High Court CWJC No.6364 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
2/12
Date : 27-10-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of appropriate
writ or writs, order or orders, direction or
directions to the Respondents No. 2 to 4, by
setting aside the impugned order vide Memo
No. 519/Patna dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure-
13 Series) of the Additional Chief Secretary,
Co-operative Department (Respondent No.3)
being received on 07.12.2022 to the
petitioner passed in Service Appeal Case No.
33/2019, during the course of physical
appearance in the office of the Secretary,
Department of Co-operative, Bihar, Patna,
in the light of the order dated 30.11.2022 of
the Hon'ble High Court passed in M.J.C. No.
2386 of 2017 and the subsequent orders vide
Memo No. 6566/Patna dated 12.07.2019,
Memo No. 7475/Patna dated 15.09.2022 and
Memo No-7712/Patna dated-26-09-2022
(Annexure-11 Series) of the Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Bihar, Patna relating to
inflicted punishment of (i) censure and (ii)
Stoppage of five increments with non-
cumulative effect right from vide order

Patna High Court CWJC No.6364 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
3/12
bearing Memo No. 6566 dated 12.07.2019
and it corrigendum orders dated 15.09.2022
and 26.09.2022 of the Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Bihar, Patna
(Respondent No.4).
(ii) For quashing of the alleged
departmental proceeding conducted against
the innocent petitioner wherein
contradictory findings have arrived due to
ill-motivated and arbitrary opinion of the
Conducting Officer cum District Co-
operative Officer, Muzaffarpur (Respondent
No.12) who has ignored the written report
based on true finding vide Letter No.504
dated 10.06.2016 of the Submitting Officer-
cum-Circle Officer, Parihar District
Sitamarhi (Respondent No.10) (Annexure 7
series) in the alleged departmental
proceeding.
(iii) For grant of compensation
due to mental and financial harassment
created by the concern respondents for no
fault of the petitioner.
(iv) For granting other relief or
reliefs to which the petitioner is found
entitled for, from the concerned
respondents.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CWJC No.6364 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
4/12
the petitioner was posted and working as the Co-operative
Extension Officer in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Government of Bihar, Madhubani Circle,
District Madhubani. Counsel further submits that the petitioner
was initially appointed as a Co-operative Extension Officer in
the year 1997. Pursuant to the policy decision of the
Government of Bihar, the petitioner came to be posted as the
Circle Officer, Parihar, District Sitamarhi. Counsel further
submits that the petitioner joined the post of Circle Officer at
Parihar and thereafter started performing his duties to the full
satisfaction of all the authorities.
4. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was
relieved from the post of Circle Officer, Parihar, District
Sitamarhi, on 13.02.2014 and joined the post of Circle Officer,
Baheri, in the district of Darbhanga. Counsel further submits
that on 10.03.2015, the petitioner received a copy of Memo No.
5545, dated 25.09.2014, issued by the Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Bihar, through registered post, whereby he was placed
under suspension under Rule 9(i)(Ka) of the Bihar Government
Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Bihar CCA Rules, 2005). Counsel
further submits that a departmental proceeding was

Patna High Court CWJC No.6364 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
5/12
contemplated against the petitioner for the alleged violation of
the service rules. The petitioner was also directed to join the
office of the District Co-operative Officer, Muzaffarpur, during
the period of suspension, as his headquarters during the
suspension period had been fixed at the office of the District Co-
operative Officer, Muzaffarpur. The allegations in the charge
memo pertained to the petitioner’s work as Circle Officer,
Parihar, District Sitamarhi.
5. Counsel further submits that, against the order of
suspension, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWJC
No. 19865 of 2015. In the said writ petition, a final order was
passed on 25.11.2016, whereby the suspension order issued vide
Memo No. 5545/Patna, dated 25.09.2014, was quashed. Counsel
further submits that the petitioner communicated the order
passed in the writ petition to the authority concerned, but no
decision was taken. Therefore, the petitioner had no option but
to file MJC No. 2386 of 2017. The State Government
challenged the order passed in CWJC No. 19685 of 2015 by
filing LPA No. 578 of 2018. The said LPA was finally decided
on 11.02.2019, whereby the order dated 25.11.2016 passed in
CWJC No. 19685 of 2015 was affirmed, with a direction to
conclude the departmental proceeding pending against the

Patna High Court CWJC No.6364 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
6/12
petitioner immediately, within three months.
6. Counsel further submits that the petitioner
submitted his reply before the Conducting Officer, who found
him guilty of the charges alleged against him. Counsel further
submits that, after the submission of the report by the
Conducting Officer, no second show-cause notice was issued to
the petitioner, however, he was imposed the punishment of
censure and stoppage of five increments with non-cumulative
effect.
7. Counsel further submits that the said order dated
12.07.2019, contained in Memo No. 6566, was modified twice.
Firstly, vide order dated 15.09.2022, contained in Memo No.
7475, and subsequently, vide order dated 26.09.2022, contained
in Memo No. 7712. Counsel further submits that, in MJC No.
2386 of 2017 arising out of CWJC No. 19685 of 2015, the order
of punishment as well as the appellate order passed against the
order of punishment were brought to the notice of the Court, and
the MJC was disposed of with liberty to challenge the same
before the appropriate authority.
8. Counsel further submits that, in the present writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders contained in
Annexure-11 series, comprising all three orders, as well as the

Patna High Court CWJC No.6364 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
7/12
appellate order dated 03.02.2020, passed by the appellate
authority and contained in Memo No. 519 (Annexure-13 series).
Counsel further submits that, in paragraph 36 of the writ
petition, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that no second
show-cause notice was issued to him, nor was any liberty
granted. The Conducting Officer, without taking any evidence
or considering any document, has submitted a report holding the
petitioner guilty, and the consequential order of punishment is
absolutely bad in law.
9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that there is no need of any interference in the said
order, as the punishment imposed is minor in nature and the
Conducting Officer has found the petitioner guilty of the
charges. Therefore, the punishment is completely in accordance
with law. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has not
raised the grounds of violation of the principles of natural
justice, procedural irregularity, or the imposition of an
exorbitant punishment. Accordingly, he submits that the writ
petition be dismissed and the final order passed by the
disciplinary authority, together with its two modifications,
annexed as Annexure-11 series, as well as the appellate order,
are fit to be sustained in the eyes of law.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6364 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
8/12
10. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the
records, it transpires to this Court that the punishment imposed
is admittedly minor in nature and, under Rule 19 of the Bihar
CCA Rules, 2005, minor punishment is to be imposed in
accordance with the procedure prescribed therein.
11. For the proper adjudication of this matter, it is
necessary to reiterate Rule 19 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005,
which reads as follows:-
19. Procedure for imposing minor
penalties.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule
(3) of Rule 18, no order imposing on a Government
Servant any of the penalties specfied in clauses (i)
to (v) of Rule 14 shall be made except after-
(a) informing the Government
Servant in writing of the proposal to take
action against him and of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is
proposed to be taken, and giving him
reasonable opportunity of making such
representation as he may wish to make
against the proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry in the
manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of
Rule 17, in every case in which the
disciplinary authority is of the opinion that
such inquiry is necessary;
(c) taking the representation, if

Patna High Court CWJC No.6364 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
9/12
any, submitted by the Government Servant
under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if
any, held under clause (b) into
consideration;
(d) recording a finding on each
imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour;
and
(e) consulting the Commission
where such consultation is necessary.
(2) The record of the proceedings in
such cases shall include-
(i) a copy of the intimation to
the Government Servant of the proposal to
take action against him;
(ii) a copy of the statement of
imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour
delivered to him;
(iii) his representation if any;
(iv) the evidence produced
during the inquiry;
(v) the advice of the
Commission, if any;
(vi) the findings of each
imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour;
and
(vii) the orders on the case
together with the reasons therefor.
12. Upon going through the provisions of Rule 19
of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, it becomes crystal clear that, for

Patna High Court CWJC No.6364 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
10/12
imposing minor punishment, there is no necessity to follow the
procedure laid down under Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005, which prescribes the procedure for imposing major
punishment. Therefore, the contention of the respondent is
correct to that extent, as there is no requirement for issuing a
second show-cause notice before imposing minor punishment.
However, Rule 19 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 is equally clear
in stating that, where the disciplinary authority decides to
continue the proceeding under Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005, every step prescribed under Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA
Rules, 2005 must necessarily be followed. This Court finds that,
in the present case, the procedure laid down under Rule 17 of
the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 has not been followed.
13. Learned counsel for the State has put emphasis
that the Conducting Officer found the petitioner guilty of the
charges. This implies that the stand of the State is that the
punishment is based on the report of the Conducting Officer. If
that is so, the procedure laid down under Rule 17 of the Bihar
CCA Rules, 2005 must be strictly followed. Upon hearing the
parties, this Court finds that the final order was passed without
issuance of a second show-cause notice, which is in violation of
Rules 17(23) and 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, under

Patna High Court CWJC No.6364 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
11/12
which the issuance of a second show-cause notice is necessary
before passing the final order.
14. In light of the discussion above, this Court finds
that there has been a gross violation of the prescribed procedure.
Hence, the punishment order dated 12.07.2019, contained in
Memo No. 6566, together with its two modifications, firstly,
vide order dated 15.09.2022, contained in Memo No. 7475, and
subsequently, vide order dated 26.09.2022, contained in Memo
No. 7712, annexed as Annexure-11 series and order dated
03.02.2020, passed by the appellate authority, contained in
Memo No. 519 annexed as Annexure-13 series are hereby set
aside.
15. It is hereby directed that the authority
concerned shall pass a fresh order after issuing a second show-
cause notice to the petitioner within 60 days from today.
16. It is made clear that the modifications made to
the original order in compliance with the orders passed by the
writ court as well as the LPA court shall be duly taken into
consideration. This Court has set aside the punishment orders on
account of procedural irregularity. However, this Court is also
conscious of the fact that the modification orders were passed in
compliance with the orders passed in the writ petition.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6364 of 2023 dt.27-10-2026
12/12
Nevertheless, as the original order has been set aside for the
reasons stated above, therefore, its modifications have also
become non-existent. Accordingly, as mentioned above, the
disciplinary authority is directed to pass a fresh order within 60
days from today, after issuing a second show-cause notice and
taking into consideration the order passed in the writ petition,
which was affirmed by the LPA Court.
17. With the above observations and directions, the
present writ petition stands allowed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 31.10.2026
Transmission Date NA