The Union of India vs Ratnesh Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20762 of 2025
CNR No. BRHC011121492025
======================================================
1. The Union of India through The Director General, Indian Council of
Agriculture Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.
3. The Joint Director (Administration), Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
New Delhi-110012.
4. The Head, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Regional Station,
Willington, Neelgiri, PIN Code-643231 (Tamil, Nadu).
5. The Indian Head, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Regional Station,
Pusa, District-Samastipur, PIN Code-848125 (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Ratnesh Kumar S/o Late Ram Dev Sah, Resident of Village Balra Kishun,
P.O.-Balra Ismail, via Baghi, District-Muzaffarpur, PIN Code-844112 (Bihar).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Ms.Rubi Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 05-11-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the sole respondent.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by and dissatisfied with
the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT
or the learned Tribunal' as the case may be) in OA

Patna High Court CWJC No.20762 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
2/9
No.050/00726/2019 filed by the respondents-petitioners. The
learned Tribunal has been pleased to quash the charge memo dated
04.01.2013, inquiry report dated 30.07.2013, 07.09.2013 and the
order dated 03.10.2013 passed by the disciplinary authority, as also
the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the appellate authority. After
quashing/setting aside of the impugned orders, the learned
Tribunal has issued directions to the respondent-petitioners to
reinstate the applicant-respondent in service, restore his seniority
and a further direction has been issued to the petitioners being
employer to take a decision in the administrative side as regards
the payment of salary for the period the applicant was under
suspension, till date.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while
setting aside the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority as
well as the appellate authority, the learned Tribunal failed to
appreciate that the applicant-sole respondent was given adequate
opportunity to participate in the disciplinary proceeding but he
himself neglected the proceeding and did not cooperate with the
same. Learned counsel submits that, in such circumstance, if an
ex-parte inquiry report was submitted saying that the charges were
duly proved, no fault may be found with the same.

Patna High Court CWJC No.20762 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
3/9
4. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter,
the learned Tribunal should have considered giving opportunity to
the respondents-petitioners herein to conduct a disciplinary
proceeding afresh from the stage of service of the charge memo.
Submissions on behalf of the sole-respondent
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the sole
respondent submits that on a bare perusal of the pleadings
available on the record as also the impugned order of the learned
Tribunal, it would appear that the respondents-petitioners have
been able to keep the applicant-respondent out of service over a
decade without proving the charges against him. It is submitted
that the respondent no.2 is the competent authority to
remove/dismiss the applicant but removal order was passed by the
respondent no.3 who is lower in rank than the respondent no.2 and
was not competent to pass the order.
6. It is further submitted that the removal order has been
passed on the basis of an ex-parte inquiry report even as the copy
of the inquiry report was not served upon the respondent-applicant.
The Inquiry Officer happened to be rank in below than the
respondent nos.3 and 4 whereas he should have been above or at
least equivalent in rank.

Patna High Court CWJC No.20762 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
4/9
7. Learned counsel submits that during the enquiries, the
management did not adduce any evidence to prove the charges.
Not a single enlist witness from the charge-sheet was called to
depose. Even if the enquiry was going ex-parte, it was incumbent
upon the management/employer to produce the enlisted witnesses
to prove the charges against the delinquent employee. In the
present case, the ex-parte inquiry report was submitted holding the
charges proved against the petitioner but that was without any
basis.
8. It is submitted that, in such circumstance, in the first
round of litigation, the learned Tribunal had remanded the matter
to the appellate authority without going into the merit of the order
of removal from service but the appellate authority has passed an
order dated 20.08.2018 whereby and whereunder the punishment
awarded vide order dated 03.10.2013 has been upheld. It is
submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal
is perfectly in accordance with law which needs no interference.
Consideration
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the records, we find that the learned Tribunal has, after
giving appropriate consideration to the submissions of the parties,
found that the inquiry officer had decided to proceed ex-parte and

Patna High Court CWJC No.20762 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
5/9
had submitted a report dated 30.07.2013 (Annexure-A/6) holding
that the charges levelled against the applicant are proved. In
paragraphs '24', '25', '26' and '27', the learned Tribunal has
recorded as under:-
"24. Perusal of Inquiry Report dated 30.07.2013
(Annexure-A/6) indicates that the Inquiry Officer has not
recorded the statement of any of listed witnesses and
therefore, no relied upon document was proved by any of
the witness, for the reasons, according to 1.0., that no
purpose will be served for doing so in absence of applicant
or his defence assistant.
25. The Presenting Officer has submitted his objection and
stated that it was desirable to record the statement of
witnesses before the Inquiry Officer. But the said objection
of the P.O. was not taken into account/or overruled by the
Inquiry Officer and concluded the inquiry without
examination of any of the witness from the list of
witnesses annexed with charge memo.
26. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed a penalty
upon applicant for removal from service not a
disqualification for further employment under the
Government. The Appellate Authority vide order dated
07.01.2014 has decided the appeal during the pendency of
OA No. 31/2014 filed before this Tribunal.
27. This Tribunal vide its order dated 31.10.2017 has
allowed the OA in part. The relevant portion of the order
31.10.2017 is as under: -
"We note that removal also is the ultimate
punishment for a government servant. The
possibility of getting of another government
employment is only a legal fiction, in practice, its
chances are close to nil. Therefore, now that this
point has been agitated before us, in our view in

Patna High Court CWJC No.20762 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
6/9
the interest of justice it would be prudent for the
Appellate Authority to give appropriate
opportunity to the applicant and if necessary
personal hearing to the applicant so that he gets an
opportunity to place before him it there are any
mitigating circumstances or any other contributing
causes for this mishap which might persuade the
Appellate Authority to consider giving a lower
punishment. In conclusion, the Appellate
Authority's order dated 07.10.2014 is quashed and
set aside and the matter is remanded to the
Appellate Authority to pass fresh reasoned order
in accordance with law after giving personal
hearing to the applicant within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. This Tribunal has not expressed any opinion
on the merit of the O.A. and direction issued to
the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal of
the applicant filed against the order of punishment
dated 03.10.2013 issued by the respondent no.3 by
which the applicant has been removed from the
service. Accordingly, O.A is allowed in part. No
costs."
10. It is further found that the appellate authority passed
the order dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure-A/11) and dismissed the
appeal dated 06.11.2013 of the applicant after observing that there
is no requirement to interfere in the order imposing penalty on
applicant for removal from service which shall not be a
disqualification for further employment under the government.
11. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs.

Patna High Court CWJC No.20762 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
7/9
Punjab National Bank & Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570
and Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported
in (2013) 4 SCC 301 . Paragraphs '14', '15' and '19' in case of Roop
Singh Negi (supra) have been quoted by the learned Tribunal and
we reproduce the same hereunder:-
" 14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-
judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-
judicial function. The charges levelled against the
delinquent officer must be found to have been proved.
The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon
taking into consideration the materials brought on record
by the parties. The purported evidence collected during
investigation by the investigating officer against all the
accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the
disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to
prove the said documents. The management witnesses
merely tendered the documents and did not prove the
contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the
enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been
treated as evidence.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic
evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the
enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the
appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he
was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was
tortured in the police station. The appellant being an
employee of the Bank, the said confession should have
been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on
record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank
draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence.
Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the
report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up

Patna High Court CWJC No.20762 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
8/9
his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not
have proceeded on the basis that the offence was
committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.
19. The judgment and decree passed against the
2
respondent in Narinder Mohan Arya case had attained
finality. In the said suit, the enquiry report in the
disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same was
held to have been based on no evidence. The appellant
therein in the aforementioned situation filed a writ
petition questioning the validity of the disciplinary
proceeding, the same was dismissed. This Court held that
when a crucial finding like forgery was arrived at on an
evidence which is non est in the eye of the law, the civil
court would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.
This Court emphasised that a finding can be arrived at by
the enquiry officer if there is some evidence on record. It
was furthermore found that the order of the appellate
authority suffered from non-application of mind."
12. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, taken a view on
the strength of the aforementioned judicial pronouncements that
even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the
evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges.
13. In our considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has
rightly applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) and Nirmala J.
Jhala (supra), in the facts of the present case.
14. We have further noticed that the learned Tribunal
having noticed that the charge memo was issued on 04.01.2013 i.e.
2. (2006) 4 SCC 713 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 840

Patna High Court CWJC No.20762 of 2025 dt.05-11-2026
9/9
more than 12 years prior, no useful purpose will be served by
remanding the matter to initiate fresh enquiry from initial stage.
We are of the considered opinion that this view of the learned
Tribunal cannot be said to be perversed.
15. This Court sitting in it's present jurisdiction to
examine the judgment/order of the learned Tribunal from the point
of view of the principles governing a writ in the nature of
certiorari, is fully satisfied that the learned Tribunal has taken a
reasonable view of the matter.
16. In result, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned order of the learned Tribunal.
17. This writ application fails. Consequences shall
follow.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Ranjan Kumar Jha, J)
arvind/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 07-11-2026
Transmission Date