The State of Bihar vs Navin Kumar Singh
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.38 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21044 of 2012
CNR No. BRHC010031452024
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Officer on Special Duty cum Deputy Secretary to Government, General
Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Enquiry Officer cum Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division,
Saharsa.
4. The District Magistrate, Supaul.
5. Sri Arun Dedhgawar, the then Sub Divisioanl Officer, Nirmali Supaul at
present working as Addl. Secretary, Home Department, Old Secretariat,
Bihar, Patna.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Navin Kumar Singh son of Sri Badri Narayan Singh, Resident of Village-
Pahsara, P.S.-Naokothi, District-Begusarai.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr.Vijay Kumar Choudhary, A.C. To G.P.24
For the Respondent : Mr.Suresh Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH)
Date : 03-11-2026
Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filled by the
State of Bihar challenging order dated 19.10.2023, passed in
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21044 of 2012.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal, at the instance
of the State of Bihar and its authorities, has been preferred
assailing the judgment and order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the
Learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 21044 of 2012, whereby the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.38 of 2024 dt.03-11-2026
2/5
writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed, the orders
of punishment dated 02.01.2012 and 14.03.2012 were set aside
and the matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority for
reconsideration of the respondent's reply to the second show-
cause notice and also to take note of alleged proved charge
relating to certain belated entries made by the petitioner and
proceed to impose minor penalty.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that
imposition of penalty to a public servant is exclusively fall
within domain of the Disciplinary Authority, unless punishment
is so excessive that it shakes conscience of the Court. It is the
Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority who has to
reconsider and pass a fresh appropriate order. The choice and
quantum of disciplinary punishment ordinarily lie within the
domain of the Disciplinary Authority. A writ court does not act
as an Appellate Authority or substitute its preferred penalty
merely because it might have imposed a different one.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the State authorities acted in an
arbitrary manner without application of mind and without taking
into consideration the materials available on record while
passing penalty order. He submits that that prior to second
show-cause to the writ petitioner/present respondent, consent
from the Bihar Public Service Commission (in short the BPSC)
was sought for and the BPSC through the meeting dated
17.08.2011 drew a resolution and dissented against the
punishment imposed upon the writ petitioner/present
respondent, which is evident from Annexure-22/2 of the writ
petition. However, authorities did not consider the advice of the
BPSC received vide Letter No. 1402 dated 1.9.2021 and passed
Patna High Court L.P.A No.38 of 2024 dt.03-11-2026
3/5
penalty order. He submits that in view of these reasons, this
appeal is devoid of any substances and it fit to be dismissed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials available on record, including the grounds
raised in the memorandum of appeal, the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the respondent and the judgment impugned herein.
6. There can be no dispute with the proposition that
the choice of an appropriate penalty ordinarily falls within the
domain of the disciplinary authority. The Court cannot
ordinarily assume the role of the disciplinary authority and
determine the precise punishment to be imposed. The authority
competent to impose punishment must independently consider
the nature of the proved misconduct, the respondent's
explanation, the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the advice
of the BPSC before arriving at a final conclusion.
7. Quantum of punishment is within the discretionary
domain and the sole power of the decision-making authority
once the charge of misconduct stands proved. Such
discretionary power is exposed to judicial interference if
exercised in a manner which is grossly disproportionate to the
fault, as the constitutional courts while exercising the power of
judicial review do not assume the role of the appellate authority .
When a writ court finds that a major punishment imposed by a
disciplinary or appellate authority is shockingly disproportionate
to the proven misconduct, the proper course of action is to set
aside the punishment and to remit the matter back to the
Disciplinary Authority or to the Appellate Authority to re-
consider and pass a fresh, appropriate order. Reliance is placed
on the decision in case of Union of India vs Managobinda
Patna High Court L.P.A No.38 of 2024 dt.03-11-2026
4/5
Samantaray, reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 244 .
8. Contention of respondent that Disciplinary
Authority did not consider recommendation/advice of the BPSC
while passing penalty order, is fit to be rejected. As a general
rule, the State Public Service Commission’s advice on the
penalty is recommendatory, not binding on the Disciplinary
Authority. The mere fact that the Commission suggested a lesser
punishment would not, by itself, render the punishment
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, illegal. The Disciplinary
Authority must make its own decision under the applicable
service rules; it may accept or reject the advise of the BPSC,
while applying its mind to the record and giving reasons as
required by law.
9. In view of the above discussions of the parties and
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the observation of the
writ court made in paragraph 7 of the judgment dated
19.10.2023, passed in C.W.J.C.No. 21044 of 2012 directing the
Disciplinary Authority to impose ‘minor punishment’ is hereby
partly modified with the observation that the Disciplinary
Authority may proceed to impose appropriate punishment in
accordance with law after re-examining from the date of receipt
of petitioner’s reply to the second show cause notice and also to
take note of the alleged proved charge relating to certain belated
entries made by the petitioner.
10. Needless to mention that as per direction of the
impugned judgment, the above exercise shall be undertaken
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this
LPA order. Disciplinary Authority, if he imposes a particular
penalty, thereafter, petitioner's pay fixation is required to be
Patna High Court L.P.A No.38 of 2024 dt.03-11-2026
5/5
undertaken with reference to date of his retirement and other
service particulars. The same shall be undertaken within a
period of six months from the date of passing of final order in
departmental inquiry.”
11. Thus, Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed partly.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Shashi
AFR/NAFR A F R
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.11.2026
Transmission Date NA