IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Order XXI Rule 3 (1) (a) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. ______ OF 2023

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

(Arising out of the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 533 of 2019)

BETWEEN: Position of the Parties

In the High In this Court

Hansraj Singh,

S/o Late Dasai Chaudhary,

R/o Vill. Marachi,

P.S. Punpun,

Dist. Patna,

Bihar Appellant Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Bihar, Through the

Principal Secretary, 19 Health
Department, New Secretariat,
Punaichak, Bailey Road,
Patna Respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 1
2. The Director – in - Chief, Health
Services, Health Department, New
Secretariat, Punaichak, Bailey Road,
Patna
Bihar Respondent No. 2 Respondent No. 2
 To, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
INDIA AND HIS OTHER COMPANION
JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the petitioner above named most respectfully submits this Special Leave Petition

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India for grant of Special Leave to Appeal

against the Impugned judgment and final order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 533 of 2019, wherein the High Court was

pleased to dispose the LPA filed by the Petitioner herein.

1A. That no LPA/WA lies against the impugned order except for filing the Special

Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before this Hon’ble Court.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW

The Special Leave Petition raises the following important questions of law for

the kind consideration by this Hon’ble Court:

a) Whether the act of the respondent authorities of vacating the Petitioner’s

suspension after he was released from Jail Custody and submitted his joining report in

the department on 06.06.2011 and then again placing him under suspension vide Memo

No. 5848 dated 06.06.2011 by fixing his headquarters at Primary Health Centre, Maner,

Patna is an arbitrary and illegal act in the eyes of the law?

b) Whether the act of the respondent authorities of suspending the Petitioner

once again vide Memo No. 133(4) dated 13.02.2014 and fixing his headquarters at

Sadar Hospital, Purnea on the exact same charges on which he was suspended earlier
and later had his suspension revoked as the charges against him were not found to be

proved and arbitrary and illegal act in the eyes of the law?

c) Whether the act of the respondent authorities of appointing another

conducting officer and presenting officer and initiating departmental proceedings on

the basis of the exact same charges which were not proved during the first time wrong

and incorrect in law?

d) Whether the act of the respondent authorities of not supplying certain

documents to the Petitioner which he demanded on 19.03.2014 and 26.03.2014 for the

purpose of filing his defence statement for which he submitted a representation dated

14.04.2014 wrong and incorrect in law.

e) Whether the act of the respondent authorities of dismissing the Petitioner

from service by Memo No. -4/A.5-11/2011-435(4) dated 29.05.2014 only based on the

allegation that he has taken bribe in the most arbitrary and illegal manner without

producing any witnesses in support of the charges levelled against him wrong and

incorrect in the eyes of the law?

f) Whether the Principal Secretary cum Appellate Authority’s dismissal of the

Petitioner’s appeal by Memo No.-4/A-5-11/2011-1138(4) dated 25.11.2016 wherein

the Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed without considering that the onus to prove the

charges lies on the department and not on the delinquent officer wrong and incorrect in

the eyes of the law?

g) Whether the fact that the Petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated

29.05.2014 passed by the Director in Chief, Health Services without any material or

evidence and that the Director only relied on the prosecution report which has been

affirmed by the Appellate Authority is wrong and incorrect in law?

 h) Whether the High Court has failed to appreciate that it had previously in a

writ petition numbered C.W.J.C. No. 2193 of 2015 with similar facts and circumstances

directed the reinstatement of the petitioner and payment of consequential benefits

thereto by the Judgement dated 20.12.2016?

i) Whether the High Court has failed to appreciate that this Hon’ble Court in a

catena of cases has held that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and

appellate authority shall be unsustainable in law when the findings recorded by them

are not based on any evidence whatsoever and also that the appellate authority must

apply its mind independently and it cannot simply cut and paste the findings of the

disciplinary authority?

j) Whether the High Court has failed to appreciate that the matter has been

remanded back to the stage of enquiry by them on three occasions i.e. vide Judgement

dated 02.05.2016 in C.W.J.C. No. 6669 of 2014, vide Judgement dated 02.04.2019 in

C.W.J.C. No. 879 of 2017 and finally vide Judgement dated 06.12.2022 in L.P.A. No.

533 of 2019 and no witnesses turned up against the Petitioner on remand vide the above

mentioned three Judgements?

DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3 (2)

The Petitioner states that he has filed no other petition seeking leave to appeal against

the Impugned Judgment and final order 06.12.2022 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 533 of 2019.

DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:

The Annexures P – 1 to P - 9 produced along with the Special Leave Petition are the

true copies of the pleadings/documents which formed part of the records of the case in

the Courts below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.
5. GROUNDS:

The Special Leave Petition is being preferred on the following among other grounds:

a) The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court erred in appreciating that when the

Petitioner was released from Jail Custody and submitted his joining report in the

department on 06.06.2011, the respondent authorities did vacate his suspension.

However, the respondent authorities again placed the Petitioner under suspension by

Memo No. 5848 dated 06.06.2011 by fixing his headquarters at Primary Health Centre,

Maner, Patna.

b) The High Court failed to appreciate that an Enquiry Report was submitted by Memo

No. 23/I.M.A. dated 08.10.2011 wherein the Conducting Officer of the Departmental

Enquiry did not find any charges to be proved against the Petitioner. However, it was

opined that the charges in the departmental proceedings shall be covered with the

finding recorded in the criminal case by the criminal court.

c) The High Court has further failed to take note of the fact that based on the Enquiry

Report dated 08.10.2011, the suspension of the Petitioner was revoked vide Memo No.

11762 dated 17.10.2011. The Petitioner was once again posted as a Clerk in the Sub

Divisional Officer, Masauri, Patna.

d) The High Court has also erred in looking at the fact that the Petitioner was once again

placed under suspension by Memo No. 4/A-5- 11/2011-133(4) dated 13.02.2014 and

his headquarters were fixed at Sadar Hospital, Purnea. The most important fact which

seems to have escaped the attention of the High Court was that the Petitioner was

suspended for the exact same charges for which he was earlier suspended and then later

had his suspension revoked as the charges against him were not found to be proved in

the Departmental Enquiry on that occasion.

e) The High Court has erred in appreciating that Departmental Proceedings were again

initiated against the Petitioner by appointing another Conducting Officer and Presenting

Officer. It is pertinent to note that Departmental Proceedings were initiated against the

Petitioner for the second time based on the exact same charges on which they were

initiated for the first time. The said charges were not proved for the first time.

f) The High Court has taken note of the fact that in the disciplinary proceedings, charge

memo was issued on 10.06.2011 but this charge memo never attained finality either in

imposition of penalty or in exoneration. The disciplinary authority without concluding

the departmental proceedings based on the charge memo issued on 10.06.2011, initiated

a fresh enquiry against the Petitioner by framing articles of charges on 17.02.2014

where the charges framed were the same as in the earlier charge memo. It is submitted

that the High Court has noted in the impugned order that the charge memo issued on

17.02.2014 is not supported by the statement of imputation, the list of documents and

the list of witnesses against the Petitioner.

g) The Memo of Charge was framed vide Memo No. 2397 dated 21.02.2014 in Form

K and the charges framed were found to be the exact same which were framed against

the Petitioner earlier by Memo No. 5967 dated 10.06.2011 which was subsequently

held to be not proved against the Petitioner in the Departmental Enquiry.

h) The High Court has also not appreciated that the Petitioner wrote a Letter to the

Additional Director, Health Services, Bihar, Patna dated 14.04.2014 for supply of

certain documents which he had sought for the filing of his defence statement vide his

two representations on 19.03.2014 and 26.03.2014 but the same was not supplied to the

Petitioner.
i) The High Court has failed to appreciate that the Petitioner was dismissed from service

by Memo No. 4 /A-05-11/2011-435(4) dated 29.05.2014 only based on the allegation

that he has taken bribe. The dismissal order of the Petitioner was passed in the most

arbitrary and illegal manner without producing any witnesses in support of the charges

levelled against him.

j) The High Court has erred in appreciating that Rule 17 Subrule 3 (ii) (b) of Bihar CCA

Rules, 2005 mandates that the articles of charge framed against the delinquent officer

must be sustained by a list of documents and a list of all the witnesses against him.

k) The Petitioner had challenged the legality of the order of his dismissal dated

29.05.2014 by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 6669 of 2014 wherein the High

Court ordered Respondent No. 2 to dispose the Petitioner’s appeal within a period of

four months. Subsequently, the Principal Secretary cum Appellate Authority dismissed

the Petitioner’s appeal by Memo No.-4/A-5-11/2011-1138(4) dated 25.11.2016 where

he had considered the same charges which were levelled against the Petitioner in the

first departmental proceeding wherein he was exonerated. The appeal of the Petitioner

was dismissed without considering that the onus to prove the charge lies on the

department and not on the delinquent officer.

l) The High Court has erred in appreciating the fact that the Enquiry Officer has neither

examined any oral or documentary evidence nor has it followed the prescribed

procedure for conduct of departmental enquiry and has held the Petitioner guilty on the

exact same set of charges on which he was earlier exonerated by Memo No. 23/I.M.A.

dated 08.10.2011. The Petitioner has been dismissed from service by order dated

29.05.2014 passed by the Director in Chief, Health Services without any material or

evidence vide Memo No. -4/A.5-11/2011-435(4). The Director has only relied on the

prosecution report which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

m) The High Court has failed to appreciate that it had previously in a writ petition

numbered C.W.J.C. No. 2193 of 2015 with similar facts and circumstances directed the

reinstatement of the petitioner and payment of consequential benefits thereto by the

Judgement dated 20.12.2016.

n) The High Court has failed to appreciate that Rule 17 subrule 14 of the Bihar CCA

Rules,2005 has not been complied with which mandates that the witnesses shall be

examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and they may also be cross-

examined by or on behalf of the Government Servant. The disciplinary authority has

had three chances to produce the witnesses against the Petitioner as the case of the

Petitioner was remanded back to the stage of enquiry three times i.e. vide Judgement

dated 02.05.2016 in C.W.J.C. No. 6669 of 2014, vide Judgement dated 02.04.2019 in

C.W.J.C. No. 879 of 2017 and finally vide Judgement dated 06.12.2022 in L.P.A. No.

533 of 2019.

o) The High Court has failed to appreciate that this Hon’ble Court in a catena of cases

has held that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority shall

be unsustainable in law when the findings recorded by them are not based on any

evidence whatsoever. The appellate authority must apply its mind independently and it

cannot simply cut and paste the findings of the disciplinary authority. Some of 30 the

Judgements where this Hon’ble Court had held the same are as follows:

1) Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 590

2) Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10

3) Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported at (1978) 3 SCC 366

4) Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. Allahabad Bank, (2003) 9 SCC 480

 5) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC

584

6) Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. State of U.P., (2010) 10 SCC 539

p) The Division bench of the High Court has failed to appreciate that the enquiry officer

in the Memo No. 23/I.M.A. dated 08.10.2011 did not find any allegation to be proved

against the Petitioner and subsequently vide Memo No. 11762 dated 17.10.2011, the

suspension of the Petitioner was revoked. No witnesses appeared at this stage of

departmental proceedings. The Petitioner was once again placed under suspension on

the same charges vide Memo dated 13.02.2014. Charges were framed against the

Petitioner in Form K and departmental proceedings were initiated vide Memo dated

17.02.2014. The Petitioner was once again placed under suspension vide Letter No.

04/A-5/-11/2011-378(4) dated 13.05.2014 only on the basis of the prosecution report

against him and no witnesses turned up to testify against the Petitioner on the second

opportunity as well. The Petitioner preferred writ petition vide CWJC No. 6669 of 2014

which was disposed of by the Judgement dated 02.05.2016 directing the appellate

authority to dispose the Petitioner’s appeal within a period of four months. The

Petitioner’s appeal was then dismissed by the Principal Secretary, Health Department,

Bihar, Patna by an Order No.- 4/A-5-11/2011-1138(4) dated 25.11.2016. The Petitioner

preferred another writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 879 of 2017 before the High Court

challenging his order of dismissal wherein the writ petition was allowed by the

Judgement dated 02.04.2019 but the matter was again relegated back to the stage of

enquiry with a direction to conduct a fresh enquiry against the Petitioner. The Petitioner

filed L.P.A. No. 533 of 2019 challenging the Judgement dated 02.04.2019 to the extent

of the order of remand and fresh enquiry but the division bench once again remanded

the matter back to the stage of enquiry vide its Judgement dated 06.12.2022.
q) The High Court has erred in appreciating the fact that the matter has been remanded

back to the stage of enquiry on three occasions vide Judgement dated 02.05.2016 in

C.W.J.C. No. 6669 of 2014, vide Judgement dated 02.04.2019 in C.W.J.C. No. 879 of

2017 and finally vide Judgement dated 06.12.2022 in L.P.A. No. 533 of 2019. No

witnesses appeared against the Petitioner on all these three occasions.

r) This Hon’ble Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs.

B. Karunakar & Ors., (1993) 4SCC 727 has held that:

“48. It is settled law that the disciplinary authority, by whatever name called,

has power and jurisdiction to enquire into the misconduct by himself or by his

delegate and to impose the penalty for proved misconduct of a delinquent. It is

a condition precedent that the charge-sheet, statement of facts in support

thereof and the record, if any, need to be supplied to the delinquent. The record,

if, bulky and not having been supplied, an opportunity for inspection and to have

copies thereof at his expenses, be given as per rules, regulations or standing

orders. The delinquent must be given reasonable opportunity to submit his

written statement. In case he denies the charges and claims for enquiry,

disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer, if appointed, shall conduct the

enquiry. The department should examine the witness or prove the documents to

establish the charge of the imputed misconduct. The delinquent shall be given

an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, if he so desires to examine

himself and to examine his witnesses in rebuttal. After giving an opportunity of

being heard the enquiry officer should consider the entire records and the

evidence and should submit his report to the disciplinary authority with reasons

and findings or conclusions in support of the proof or disproof of 33 each of the

 charge or charges, as the case may be. He shall transmit the record of enquiry

and his report to the disciplinary authority.”

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

a. The Petitioner has a good prima facie case and is likely to succeed before this Hon’ble

Court;

b. In case the Impugned Judgement is not stayed, the Petitioner shall suffer irreparable

loss and injury;

c. That the grounds mentioned hereinabove may be treated as grounds for interim relief

also.

7. MAIN PRAYER:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court maybe graciously

pleased to:

(a) Grant special leave to appeal against the Impugned judgment and final order dated

06.12.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 533 of 2019;

(b) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court maybe graciously

pleased to:

(a) Grant ad interim ex parte stay of the Impugned judgment and final order dated

06.12.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 533 of 2019;
(b) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY

BOUND EVER PRAY

DRAWN BY:

Karan Verma Advocate

FILED BY:

SHIVANI SHARMA

Advocate for the Petitioner

Filed on: 20.03.2023

Place: Patna
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.________of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Hansraj Singh Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar & Ors. Respondents

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings before the

Court whose order is challenged and no other documents relied upon in those

proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or

relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of the

documents/annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer

the question of law raised in the Petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special

Leave Petition for consideration of this Honourable Court. This Certificate is given on

the basis of the instructions given by the petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support

of the Special Leave Petition.

Filed on: 20.03.2023

Place: Patna Filed by

(Shivani Sharma)

Advocate for the Petitioner