Ram Deo Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Heard Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Prabhu Nath Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned Government Advocate for the Respondents.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for (i) quashing the memo of charge dated 22.11.2019 contained in Memo no. 3675 dated 19.12.2019 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, (ii) quashing the memo of charge dated 25.7.2023 contained in letter no. 1827 dated 23.8.2023 issued under the signature of the Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, (iii) quashing the memo of charge dated 12.2.2024 contained in letter no. 419 dated 12.2.2024 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, (iv) quashing the memo of charge dated 12.2.2024 contained in letter no. 420 dated 12.2.2024 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, and (v) quashing the order of punishment contained in Memo no. 9347 dated 29.8.2025 issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar.

The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar on 3.1.1995. He was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 5.8.2016 and as Superintending Engineer on 25.10.2023.

The petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice contained in letter no.3675 dated 19.12.2019 on the charge that sufficient maintenance work was not done by him while posted as Executive Engineer, Works Division, Patori. The petitioner filed his reply to the notice on 4.1.2020.

The petitioner was served with another memo of charge which related to the period between 2011 to 2015 when the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Works Division, Begusarai. The charge against the petitioner was of not submitting test report of compressive strength of brick from NIT Patna wherein the compressive strength of brick was found less than the required minimum compressive strength. The petitioner filed his reply to the show-cause on 31.8.2023.

The petitioner was thereafter served with a memo of charge dated 12.2.2024 which related to the petitioner not joining in time against his promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause on 13.2.2024 stating therein that the petitioner joined on the post of Superintending Engineer on 5.4.2023 and was on casual leave from 31.3.2023 to 3.4.2023.

The petitioner was served with another memo of charge dated 12.2.2024 which related to the period that the petitioner was posted as Superintending Engineer, Works Circle, Darbhanga. As per the charge, against Tender ID 127626 while declaring Shri. Govind Jha as successful bidder, it was stated that the petitioner did not make clear the annual turnover of the civil work. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause on 13.2.2024.

Shri P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the memo of charges impugned in the instant writ application relate to the period that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer or Superintending Engineer. While Assistant Engineer comes under Group 'B' of the Government service, Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer come under Group 'A'. Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (‘CCA Rules’ in short) provides that where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior. Further, Rule 2(j) of the CCA Rules provides that disciplinary authority means appointing authority. It was submitted that so far as the petitioner's reply dated 4.1.2020 to the show-cause notice dated 19.12.2019 is concerned, the same has been accepted by the Government.

Shri P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that so far as the other memo of charges dated 25.7.2023, 12.2.2024, and 12.2.2024 are concerned, the same were issued to the petitioner when he was either the Executive Engineer or the Superintending Engineer, that is in a Group 'A' Government service. On a bare perusal of the same, it would transpire that so far as the memo of charge have been issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Rural Works Department, the same have not been done on the approval of the Chief Minister as is the requirement under the Rules of Executive Business. Further, so far as the order of punishment dated 29.8.2025 passed against the petitioner is concerned, there has been a clear cut case of discrimination. Reliance is placed upon the judgments in the case of The State of Bihar & Ors. vs Yogendra Singh; 2009 (1) PLJR 187 and State of Uttar Pradesh vs Raj Pal Singh; (2010) 5 SCC 783. It was submitted that in a body consisting of three Executive Engineers and two Accountants, the petitioner was singled out for imposition of the punishment. The respondents failed to take into consideration that the verification work had to be done by the Divisional Accountant. It was lastly submitted that Minister not being the appointing authority of a Class I officer, he could not be the disciplinary authority and memo of charge could not be issued on his approval.

For all these facts, the explanation furnished by the petitioner to the memo of charge dated 22.11.2019 having been accepted by the Department, the other memo of charge dated 25.7.2023 (Annexure-2), dated 12.2.2024 (Annexure-3), dated 12.2.2024 (Annexure-4) and order of punishment dated 29.8.2025 are all unsustainable and be set aside.

The application is opposed by learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. It was submitted that so far as the memo of charge dated 22.11.2019 is concerned, the explanation furnished by the petitioner to the same was accepted by the Department by letter dated 25.9.2025.

With respect to the other memo of charges dated 25.7.2023 (Annexure-2), 12.2.2024 (Annexure-3) and 12.2.2024 (Annexure-4), it was submitted that by letter no. 6968 dated 12.7.2021 of the General Administration Department, it is made clear that appointing authority of all the posts above Assistant Engineer, except the top post and Head of Department, will be the Departmental Minister through the Principal Secretary/Secretary and thus the Departmental Minister will be the disciplinary authority also. It was thus submitted that as the petitioner does not hold the top post nor is he the Head of Department, the approval of the Departmental Minister having been obtained in the file, the memo of charge in question have been framed following the due process of law. There is no illegality in the framing of the charges, no merit in the instant application and thus the same be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

By way of the instant writ application, the petitioner has challenged the four different memo of charges issued at different stages when the petitioner was posted in the Rural Works Department. He has also challenged the order of punishment dated 29.8.2025.

It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 3.1.1995, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 5.8.2016 and on the post of Superintending Engineer in the Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar on 25.10.2023.

The petitioner was served with a memo of charge dated 22.11.2019 along with covering letter no. 3675 dated 19.12.2019 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar. The charge related to sufficient maintenance work not having been done. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 4.1.2020. As would be evident from the letter no. 10322 dated 25.9.2025 of the Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, the explanation furnished by the petitioner was accepted by the Department.

In view of these facts, the Court is not entering into the prayer made by the petitioner for setting aside the memo of charge dated 22.11.2019.

It may be mentioned here that as per the letter no.6968 dated 12.7.2021 of the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, brought on record as Annexure-H to the counter affidavit of respondent no.6, though the charge may be for the period when the officer concerned was holding a post of a lower rank, the disciplinary authority will be a person who would be the appointing authority in accordance with the rank which the petitioner is holding at the time that the memo of charge is being issued.

In the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer on 5.8.2016 and as Superintending Engineer on 25.10.2023, both being Group 'A' posts. The memo of charge issued on 25.7.2023 (Annexure-2), 12.2.2024 (Annexure-3) and 12.2.2024 (Annexure-4) were all issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Department and as per the case of the respondents in their counter affidavit, on the approval of the Minister.

It would be relevant to mention here that as per the Rules of Executive Business, 1979 framed by the Governor of Bihar in exercise of powers conferred under Article 166(3) of the Constitution, Rule 22(2)(i) provides that the proposal to suspend officers of Group 'B' State Services or to impose on such officers the penalty of censure, stoppage at efficiency bar, withholding of increments or promotion or reduction in rank shall be submitted to the Minister-in-Charge of the Department for orders through the Departmental Principal Secretary/Secretary. Further, Rule 32(a)(vii) provides that in exclusion of the cases involving Rule 22(2)(i), the cases shall be submitted to the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary by the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department.

Relevant Rules 22(2)(i) and 32(a)(vii) of the Rules of Executive Business, 1979 are reproduced herein below for ready reference:

Thus, in view of the reading of the relevant provisions of the Rules of Executive Business together with Clause 6(i) of the letter no. 6968 dated 12.7.2021 of the General Administration Department, the memo of charges dated 25.7.2023 (Annexure-2), 12.2.2024 (Annexure-3) and 12.2.2024 (Annexure-4) are all unsustainable. Further, the requirement as contained in Rule 32(a)(vii) is concerned, neither the same has been nor the same can be amended by letter of the Principal Secretary of the department as is being sought to be done by letter no. 6968 dated 12.7.2021.

It may also be observed here that none of the memo of charges as contained in Annexure-2, 3 or 4 mentions that the same have the approval of the Chief Minister or even the Departmental Minister.

It has been the categorical case of the petitioner as evident from paragraph nos. 11 and 14 of the writ petition as also other affidavits that only the disciplinary authority can frame the charge against Group ‘B’ or Group ‘A’ Government servant under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. Thus, framing of charge by the Secretary is wholly contrary to Rule 17(3) of the CCA Rules. In response to this categorical assertion on behalf of the petitioner, the respondents refer to the provision contained in Clause 7(iii) of letter no. 6968 dated 12.7.2021 of the General Administration Department, wherein it has been provided that appointing authority of all the posts above the Assistant Engineer (except top post and Head of Department) will be the Departmental Minister through Principal Secretary/Secretary and hence the Departmental Minister will be their disciplinary authority.

It may be observed here that a departmental letter issued by the Principal Secretary (as contained in letter no. 6968) dated 12.7.2021 cannot by itself amend the provisions of the Rules of Executive Business framed by the Governor under Article 166(3) of the Constitution.

So far as the order of punishment dated 29.8.2025 is concerned, to the memo of charge dated 12.2.2024 (Annexure-3), the petitioner submitted his reply on 13.2.2024 and 26.6.2024. It was the categorical case of the petitioner that the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee comprising the Divisional Accounts Officer, Rural Works Department, the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Biraul, the Executive Engineer, Works Division, Madhubani, and the petitioner being the Superintending Engineer, Works Circle, Darbhanga in the capacity of the Chairman of the Committee met on 16.11.2023. It was submitted that the Executive Engineer, Works Division, Biraul and the Divisional Accounts Officer, RWD, Works Division, Biraul, who prepared the checklist and were also members of the Technical Bid Committee under the Chairmanship of the petitioner, did not find any mention of civil work in the checklist prepared. Further, with respect to Suman Kumar Jha, it was submitted by the petitioner that he had not given consent for extending the bid validity period of 120 days, and thus in view of Clause 15 of the SBD, the bidder had become ineligible. Thus, there was no irregularity in deciding the technical bid of Suman Kumar Jha. Reference was also placed on Rule 23 of the Bihar Public Works Account Code which provides that the Divisional Accountant is expected to see that the rules and orders in force are observed in respect of all the transactions of the division which come within his sphere of duties.

This Court is of the opinion that besides the memo of charge dated 12.2.2024 (Annexure-4) leading to the order of punishment dated 29.8.2025 being unsustainable, the Committee which considered the technical bid consisted of several members and the petitioner could not have been held responsible for imposing the punishment only for the reason that he was heading the said Committee. For this reason also, the order contained in Memo no. 9347 dated 29.8.2025 issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar imposing the punishment of censure for the period 2023–24 is not sustainable.

In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, the memo of charge dated 25.7.2023 contained in letter no.1827 dated 23.8.2023 (Annexure-P/2) issued under the signature of the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, the memo of charge dated 12.2.2024 contained in letter no. 419 dated 12.2.2024 (Annexure-P/3) issued under the signature of the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, the memo of charge dated 12.2.2024 contained in letter no. 420 dated 12.2.2024 (Annexure-P/4) issued under the signature of the Secretary, Rural Works Department as also the order of punishment contained in Memo no.9347 dated 29.8.2025 (Annexure-P/11) issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar being unsustainable are all set aside.

The writ application is allowed.