Case Background
The appellant was appointed as a Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) on 20.10.2000 in the Social Welfare set-up of the then undivided State of Bihar. She served at different postings, including Barahara in Bhojpur district and Kanti in Muzaffarpur district.
After the reorganisation of Bihar and creation of Jharkhand, the process of allocation of government employees between the two States began. The appellant wanted to stay in Bihar. She submitted an application on 24.06.2002 to the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, requesting that her services be allocated to Bihar.
Despite this request, her service was later allocated to Jharkhand by order no. 106 Jha/2007 dated 25.05.2007 and letter no. 689 dated 27.07.2007. On learning this, she sent another representation dated 04.07.2007 asking to be retained in Bihar on personal grounds.
She then came to know that another CDPO, Mary Stela Inderkar, wished to move to Jharkhand. The appellant therefore submitted an application dated 11.07.2007 seeking a mutual exchange of cadres so that she could continue in Bihar while the other officer went to Jharkhand.
In spite of these representations, she was required to join Jharkhand pursuant to the allocation order. She submitted her joining on 31.10.2008 and was posted as CDPO, Simdega. On the very same day, she applied for leave citing medical problems.
Her request for mutual allocation was ultimately accepted. Vide order no. 5553 dated 27.07.2009, she was allotted the Bihar cadre under a mutual allocation arrangement. For this, she had to be relieved from Jharkhand. She therefore wrote on 03.11.2009 to the Secretary, Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, asking to be relieved so that she could join the Government of Bihar.
Before she could be relieved, Jharkhand authorities placed her under suspension for alleged unauthorized absence. This was done under Rule 49-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 by Memo No. 1730 dated 14.11.2009. Soon thereafter, by notification no. 1740 dated 16.11.2009, the same department relieved her from Jharkhand service so she could join Bihar.
Based on this notification and her allotment to Bihar cadre, the appellant joined the Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, on 04.12.2009. On that day she also applied for study leave, stating she had qualified for and obtained admission to the Post Graduate Programme in Public Policy and Management at the Management Development Institute (MDI), Gurgaon.
What the Court Examined and Decided
After her joining in Bihar, matters took a disciplinary turn. By resolution no. 4887 dated 21.10.2010, the Government of Bihar initiated a departmental proceeding against her. The allegation was that, after joining on 04.12.2009 and seeking study leave from 07.12.2009 for one year at MDI, Gurgaon, she remained continuously absent from duty without that leave being sanctioned.
Notices were published in a daily newspaper directing her to report at the department without delay. In response, she appeared at the Social Welfare Department headquarters on 26.08.2010 and 27.08.2010. She again sought permission to complete her studies citing commencement of examinations, and then remained absent.
Sri Deokant Diwakar was appointed Inquiry Officer and Sri Vijay Kumar Singh as Presenting Officer. A memorandum of charge was served on 21.10.2010. In her provisional reply dated 17.01.2011 to the Inquiry Officer, the appellant denied misconduct and said her absence resulted from health problems, cadre allocation issues and career advancement. She insisted it was not wilful or deliberate, sought regularization of the absence through leave, post-facto approval of her study leave, and revocation of suspension.
The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 06.04.2011. He noted that the appellant herself admitted remaining absent from duty for more than two years. She claimed to have taken casual leave from 14.10.2007 to 24.10.2007 and then earned leave, medical leave and leave not due from 25.10.2007 to 04.12.2009.
However, she produced no leave sanction orders or any other document showing those leaves were approved by a competent authority. The Inquiry Officer further pointed out that, once under suspension, she could not claim leave and Rule 153 of the Bihar Service Code governed her position. That rule bars grant of leave to a government servant during suspension.
He also found that she had pursued the course at MDI, Gurgaon during the suspension period without prior departmental permission. In these circumstances, he held that she had remained absent without lawful authorization and concluded that the charge of unauthorized absence was proved.
On 25.07.2011, a second show-cause notice (letter No. 2829) was issued to her enclosing the inquiry report. She was asked to explain within 15 days why she should not be dismissed from service. She filed a detailed reply on 08.08.2011, repeating her stand about medical issues, cadre allocation problems, her leave applications and study leave.
While the second show-cause was pending, she approached the High Court through CWJC No. 3579 of 2012. In that writ petition she challenged the suspension order dated 14.11.2009, the enquiry report and the second show-cause proceedings. On 05.03.2012, she withdrew the writ petition. The Court directed that the departmental proceeding be concluded within three months.
Thereafter, the disciplinary authority considered her supplementary second show-cause reply and found it unsatisfactory. A proposal was made to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. This proposal was approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and then placed before the Bihar Public Service Commission for statutory advice under Rule 14(xi) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, as amended in 2007.
The Commission concurred with the proposed penalty. The State Council of Ministers, in its meeting dated 25.06.2012, approved the penalty of dismissal. The State Government then issued Memo No. 3263 dated 09.07.2012 dismissing the appellant from service with immediate effect.
The appellant did not challenge this dismissal immediately. She filed CWJC No. 833 of 2016 only in 2016, around four years later, questioning the dismissal order dated 09.07.2012. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 14.08.2018, mainly for two reasons.
First, the Single Judge found that after joining in Bihar on 04.12.2009 the appellant remained absent and her explanation did not satisfy the disciplinary authority, which rightly proceeded to dismissal. Second, there was an unexplained delay of about four years in challenging the dismissal.
The appellant then filed Civil Review No. 470 of 2018. This was dismissed on 03.04.2019 on the ground that she was simply asking the Court to reconsider its earlier view, which is not permitted in review jurisdiction.
Against both these orders, she filed the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 594 of 2019 before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court.
Her counsel argued that dismissal was a harsh and disproportionate punishment compared to the allegation. He emphasized her serious medical condition, other compelling circumstances and her efforts to inform the authorities and apply for leave. According to him, she never intended to abandon service.
He also submitted that the departmental proceeding was defective because Rule 17(3) of the 2005 Rules was not followed. In particular, the list of departmental witnesses was allegedly not supplied, depriving her of a fair chance to know the evidence and defend herself. He said there was no evidence that her leave applications had been rejected or that her absence was wilful. Reliance was placed on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570.
The State, in reply, maintained that she had full opportunity in the inquiry, participated in it, submitted her defence and responded to the second show-cause notice. It was argued that the charge of prolonged unauthorized absence stood established from her own admission. The State also relied on Chairman-cum-Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, and supported the Single Judge’s refusal to interfere, also pointing to the four-year delay.
The Division Bench examined the entire record: the charge memo, enquiry report, replies, punishment order, the Single Judge’s judgment and the civil review order. It first restated the settled law on judicial review in disciplinary matters, referring to Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610.
The Court underlined that under Article 226 it cannot act as an appellate authority over departmental findings. It cannot reassess evidence or substitute its own view. Interference is allowed only in limited situations: lack of jurisdiction, violation of prescribed procedure causing prejudice, breach of natural justice, findings based on no evidence, or conclusions so unreasonable that no sensible person could reach them.
On the appellant’s central claim that her absence was due to illness and studies and that the period could have been regularized, the Bench noted that records clearly showed she was absent for a long period and her leave applications were never sanctioned. She herself admitted remaining absent for more than two years.
The Court accepted the respondents’ argument that merely submitting leave applications does not amount to grant of leave. An employee cannot remain away from duty for an indefinite period without explicit permission from the competent authority.
The Bench observed that the Inquiry Officer had considered her explanations and not rejected them mechanically. The key point was her admission that she stayed away from work for more than two years without sanctioned leave. Such prolonged absence could not be justified only on the basis of having applied for leave.
The Court stressed that, after joining the Bihar cadre on 04.12.2009 as a suspended employee, she was bound to follow service discipline. She could not remain away from duty without permission. Her request for post-facto approval of the entire period of absence was rejected, especially in light of Rule 153 of the Bihar Service Code, which prohibits grant of leave to a government servant under suspension. Therefore, the period of absence during suspension could not be converted into sanctioned leave.
On the alleged non-supply of witness lists and documents, the Division Bench referred to Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v. Educational Appellate Tribunal & Others, (1999) 7 SCC 332, where the Supreme Court held that full enquiry is not necessary when charges are admitted and no real defence is offered. It also cited Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Anr. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Others, (2009) 15 SCC 620, where it was held that once a delinquent admits charges and there is no procedural illegality, courts should not interfere.
Applying these rulings, the Bench held that, in this case, all procedures were followed and there was no violation of natural justice. Since the appellant admitted unauthorized absence, there was no need for separate proof through witnesses or documents. Her admission that she remained absent from 14.10.2007 to 04.12.2009 without sanctioned leave was sufficient.
Regarding the quantum of punishment, the Bench found that, on the facts, dismissal was not so shockingly disproportionate as to justify interference in writ jurisdiction. The appellant held a responsible public post, and the disciplinary authority was entitled to take a serious view of such prolonged unauthorized absence.
The Court also gave weight to the delay in filing the writ petition. The dismissal order was dated 09.07.2012 but the writ was filed only in 2016. This four-year delay was viewed as significant.
In conclusion, the Division Bench held that the departmental proceeding was free from procedural illegality or violation of natural justice. The findings of the Inquiry Officer, accepted by the disciplinary authority, were based on the material on record and could not be termed perverse. The punishment did not call for interference in the limited scope of judicial review.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The judgment dated 14.08.2018 in CWJC No. 833 of 2016 and the order dated 03.04.2019 in Civil Review No. 470 of 2018 were affirmed. The dismissal order in Memo No. 3263 dated 09.07.2012 was left undisturbed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for government employees, especially in Bihar and Jharkhand, who may be facing disciplinary action for long absence from duty. It shows that simply sending leave applications, without actually getting them sanctioned, will not protect an employee from serious consequences.
The Patna High Court made it clear that when an officer admits to remaining absent for a long period without sanctioned leave, that admission itself can prove misconduct. In such situations, the department is not required to bring formal witnesses to show unauthorized absence.
The Court also underlined that a suspended employee cannot claim leave under Rule 153 of the Bihar Service Code. Any period of absence during suspension is treated strictly. Further, if a dismissed employee waits for several years before challenging the order, the Court will usually treat that delay seriously.
For public servants, the ruling reinforces that prolonged absence without clear, written permission can lead to dismissal, and courts will rarely interfere unless there is clear procedural unfairness or lack of evidence.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the departmental inquiry and dismissal of the appellant for prolonged unauthorized absence suffered from procedural illegality or violation of natural justice.
Answer: The Court held that all required procedures were followed, the appellant had full opportunity to defend herself, and no violation of natural justice was shown. - Issue: Whether the admitted long absence without sanctioned leave could still be treated leniently or regularized by post-facto sanction or by considering medical and study reasons.
Answer: The Court held that mere submission of leave applications does not amount to sanction, Rule 153 bars leave during suspension, and the prolonged absence remained unauthorized. - Issue: Whether the punishment of dismissal from service was so disproportionate that it required interference in writ jurisdiction.
Answer: The Court found the punishment not shockingly disproportionate in view of the admitted prolonged unauthorized absence by an officer holding a responsible public post.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610
- Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v. Educational Appellate Tribunal & Others, (1999) 7 SCC 332
- Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Anr. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Others, (2009) 15 SCC 620
- Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570 (relied upon by appellant, found not applicable)
- Chairman-cum-Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 594 of 2019
Case Title: Manisha v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikash Kumar
Citation: 2026 (6) PLJR 220
Advocates: Mr. Shekhar Singh, Senior Advocate, for the appellant; Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha (GA7) for the State of Bihar; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey for the State of Jharkhand
Nature of the Case: Intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) against dismissal of writ petition and rejection of civil review, arising from a departmental dismissal for unauthorized absence
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyM1OTQjMjAxOSMxI04=-vy64hSyuPAA=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
