Umlesh Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Heard Ms. Shama Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:

The case of the petitioner in brief is that while the petitioner was posted as District Sub-Registrar, Purnea, Vigilance P.S. Case no.6 of 2022 came to be registered against him on 12.2.2022 under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations of the petitioner possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

A departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (‘CCA Rules’ in short) on the charges that Vigilance P.S. Case no.6 of 2022 had been registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing disproportionate assets, there was discrepancy between the declared and the recovered assets and that the petitioner had violated Rule 3(1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976.

Two witnesses i.e. the Dy.SP, Vigilance and the Inspector, Vigilance were examined in course of enquiry.

The Conducting Officer submitted the enquiry report dated 24.4.2023.

The petitioner was served with a second show cause notice on 28.4.2023 enclosing with the same a copy of the enquiry report and asking the petitioner to respond to the same. The petitioner filed his defence statement on 22.5.2023.

The respondents came out with the order dated 23.8.2024 under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, Government of Bihar dismissing the petitioner from service.

The petitioner filed a review application, however as the same was not decided, the petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. no.19161 of 2024 which was disposed off with a direction to the Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, Government of Bihar to dispose off the review application of the petitioner within a period of six weeks.

By order dated 28.1.2025 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, Government of Bihar, the review application preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

The petitioner has preferred the instant application against the order of his dismissal, the order rejecting his review application as also for other reliefs as stated herein above.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no enquiry in the eyes of law, there being clear violation of Rule 17(23) of the CCA Rules. The Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report deferred any findings with respect to charge nos.1 and 2 till the outcome of the pending vigilance case/investigation. It was submitted that registration of an FIR is no evidence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that charge no.3 being an offshoot of charge nos.1 and 2 which had been deferred pending the outcome in the vigilance case, finding charge no.3 to have been proved is contradictory and perverse for the reason that charge no.3 is not independent but is an offshoot of charge nos.1 and 2. It was submitted that the disciplinary proceeding ought to have been deferred till completion of the vigilance case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that besides the second show cause notice being vague, there was non-compliance of the provisions contained under Rule 18(2) and (3) of the CCA Rules as no disagreement has been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority so far as charge nos.1 and 2 are concerned. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s specific defence was never considered and the order rejecting the review application is also unsustainable for the reason that no reasons have been assigned nor the defence of the petitioner considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been dismissed on the eve of his superannuation.

Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgments in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.; (2009) 2 SCC 570, Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra; (1998) 7 SCC 84 and Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan; (2010) 9 SCC 496.

The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar. It was submitted that Vigilance P.S. Case no.6 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner for amassing property disproportionate to his known source of income. A total of Rs.1,11,30,835/- worth of property in cash, gold and silver ornaments, immovable property and investments including bank accounts were recovered which lead to registration of an FIR under section 13(2) read with 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A departmental proceeding was also started wherein after conducting an enquiry in accordance with law, an enquiry report was submitted on 24.4.2023 holding that the conduct of the petitioner is contrary to the conduct and integrity of a Government servant under Rule 3 of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report to which the petitioner filed his reply. The department examined the reply and the same was found to be unsatisfactory. As such, the department proposed the punishment of dismissal under Rule 14(xi) of the CCA Rules and after obtaining the approval of the Hon’ble Minister as also the opinion of the Bihar Public Service Commission, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 23.8.2024.

Learned counsel for the State of Bihar further submitted that a review petition was filed by the petitioner which after due consideration by a reasoned order was rejected on 28.1.2025. It was further submitted that the charges against the petitioner are serious in nature of having amassed income disproportionate to his known sources of income, the orders impugned have been passed after following the procedures laid down in the relevant Rules and the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference in the orders impugned. There is no merit in the writ application and as such the same be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

The relevant facts in brief are that while the petitioner was posted as the District Sub-Registrar, Purnea, an FIR being Vigilance P.S. Case no.6 of 2022 was registered against him under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 12.2.2022 on the grounds of the petitioner being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Soon after the registration of the FIR, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under the CCA Rules and the petitioner was served with a memo of charge.

The charges framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding were as follows:-

After conclusion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report wherein he expressed his opinion that so far as charge nos.1 and 2 are concerned, it would be appropriate to comment on the same only after conclusion of the investigation which was going on. However with respect to the charge no.3, the Enquiry Officer observed that the conduct of the petitioner was in contravention of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976 and thus charge no.3 was proved.

The petitioner was served with a second show cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report to which he submitted his response.

The respondents thereafter having obtained the approval of the Minister as also the opinion of the Bihar Public Service Commission on the proposed punishment of dismissal came out with the order of punishment dated 23.8.2024 dismissing the petitioner from service.

The review preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 28.1.2025.

With respect to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR which has been lodged by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau against the petitioner is by itself no legal evidence at all, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra). There can be no dispute with respect to the law as settled in the case of Roop Singh Negi and the contention of learned counsel for petitioner.

It was further contended that all the three charges being interconnected and the Enquiry Officer having deferred the findings with respect to charge nos.1 and 2 till the outcome of the pending vigilance investigation in the criminal case, there is violation of Rule 17(23) of the CCA Rules. Further charge no.3 being an offshoot of charge nos.1 and 2, the respondents erred in coming to the conclusion that there was violation of Rule 3 of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976.

It may be observed here that though there may not be any doubt that all the three charges are interconnected, however so far as charge nos.1 and 2 are concerned, the same relate to the petitioner facing the allegation of disproportionate assets amounting to Rs.1,11,30,835/- and the said vigilance case/criminal case is still pending. Further, as against a declaration by the petitioner of his assets in the year 2020-21, the recovery of cash to the tune of Rs.16.5 lakhs, gold and silver ornaments valued at Rs.18.02 lakhs (approx) besides several documents related to property and 15 bank accounts, the finding on this charge by the Enquiry Officer was also deferred pending completion of the vigilance case/criminal case.

So far as charge no.3 is concerned, the same is to the effect that the conduct of the petitioner violated Rule 3(1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976. Rule 3(1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

On perusal of the contents of the enquiry report, it transpires that a detailed enquiry report (Annexure-P/4) running into 28 pages has been submitted against the petitioner finding charge no.3 to have been proved against him. Without going into the details of the contents of the report, it may be mentioned here that there is no dispute with respect to the fact that on search being conducted in the premises/residential house of the petitioner, cash to the tune of Rs.16,50,000/-, gold and silver ornaments amounting to Rs.18,02,203/-, eight documents relating to immovable properties as also documents relating to 15 bank accounts were found. Thus a total amount of Rs.1,11,30,835/- by way of disproportionate assets were found for which a case was registered at the vigilance police station.

It further transpires that in course of enquiry, a number of documents as mentioned in the report as also the witnesses in support of the charges namely Sri Sujeet Kumar Sagar, the Dy.SP of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau as also Sri Anil Kumar, Police Inspector of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau were examined and cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner at length. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer taking into consideration the estimated income, the estimated expenditure, the savings, the immoveable property acquired by the petitioner as also the members of his family, in the above mentioned detailed report came to the conclusion that so far as charge no.3 i.e. violation of Rule 3(1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976 is concerned, the same was proved.

In the opinion of the Court, neither the petitioner has been able to make out a case with respect to any illegality in the finding arrived at with respect to charge no.3 nor does the Court finds any error.

It further transpires that a second show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 28.4.2023 to which he submitted his detailed reply as contained in Annexure-P/6. It is thereafter that the respondents came out with the order dated 23.8.2024 dismissing the petitioner from service.

A perusal of the order of dismissal dated 23.8.2024 (Annesure-P/7) would show that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner in his reply to the second show cause notice has been considered. This is clearly in violation of Rule 18 of the CCA Rules.

Further even the review filed by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 28.1.2025.

As stated above, the order dated 23.8.2024 not having dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner in his reply to the second show cause notice and the same being in violation of Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, in the opinion of the Court the same is not sustainable.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order contained in notification bearing no.3455 dated 23.8.2024 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, Government of Bihar as also the order contained in Memo no.370 dated 28.1.2025 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department, Government of Bihar are both set aside.

The respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner from the stage of consideration of the second show cause notice filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner will be reinstated in service but will be paid only the subsistence allowance till the passing of the final order, as directed above.

So far as the payment of consequential benefits etc is concerned, the respondents will take a decision thereon while passing the final order which shall be passed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The writ application stands allowed to the above extent.