The Patna High Court has reaffirmed the principle that identical factual circumstances in departmental proceedings must yield uniform outcomes. When a coordinate bench has set aside termination orders against co-accused police personnel on grounds of procedural and evidentiary infirmities, the same relief must extend to others similarly situated, irrespective of separate petition filings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Shiv Balak Baitha and Shashi Bhushan Kumar, were constables in the Bihar Police who were accused of stealing three cartons of foreign liquor from the police barrack at Harnaut Police Station on 30.01.2020. A criminal case, Harnaut P.S. Case No. 33 of 2020, was registered against them under Sections 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Concurrently, departmental proceedings were initiated against all four accused constables, including Ramjee Choudhary and Chandra Kishore Yadav.
Key Facts
The alleged theft occurred on 30.01.2020 at Harnaut Police Station barrack
Departmental enquiry was conducted by an appointed Enquiry Officer
Enquiry report was submitted on 05.05.2020
Impugned termination order was passed on 13.05.2020 against all four constables
Appeals against termination were rejected by the appellate authority on 03.06.2020
Memorials filed by the petitioners were rejected on 29.07.2021 and 30.09.2021 respectively
Two co-accused, Ramjee Choudhary and Chandra Kishore Yadav, filed separate writ petitions (CWJC No. 17723 of 2021 and CWJC No. 17742 of 2021)
Those two petitions were allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, setting aside the termination order and directing reinstatement
Procedural History
30.01.2020: Alleged theft of liquor from police barrack at Harnaut
05.05.2020: Enquiry Officer submitted report in departmental proceedings
13.05.2020: Termination orders issued against all four constables
03.06.2020: Appellate Authority rejected appeals
29.07.2021: DGP rejected memorial filed by Shiv Balak Baitha
30.09.2021: DGP rejected memorial filed by Shashi Bhushan Kumar
2021: CWJC No. 17723/2021 (Ramjee Choudhary) and CWJC No. 17742/2021 (Chandra Kishore Yadav) filed and allowed by Coordinate Bench
17.06.2021: CWJC No. 17622/2021 (Shiv Balak Baitha) filed
17.06.2021: CWJC No. 17646/2021 (Shashi Bhushan Kumar) filed
04.05.2026: Present judgments delivered
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought setting aside of the termination order dated 13.05.2020, the appellate order dated 03.06.2020, and the memorial rejection orders dated 29.07.2021 and 30.09.2021. They further sought reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits including pay, allowances, seniority, and pensionary rights.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the termination orders against petitioners, arising from identical facts and proceedings as those already set aside by a Coordinate Bench for co-accused, can be sustained merely because they filed separate petitions.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were part of the same incident, faced identical departmental proceedings, and were subject to the same termination order. Since a Coordinate Bench of this Court had already set aside the termination orders of Ramjee Choudhary and Chandra Kishore Yadav - on grounds of procedural irregularities and lack of sufficient evidence - the principle of consistency and equality before law demanded identical relief. Reliance was placed on the doctrine of stare decisis and the constitutional mandate under Article 14.
For the Respondent
The State, through its counsel, conceded that the petitioners were similarly situated to the two petitioners whose writ petitions had been allowed. The State did not contest the factual parity or the legal reasoning applied in the earlier judgments. It accepted that no distinguishing factor existed between the cases and agreed that the impugned orders should be set aside.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the factual matrix in all four cases was indistinguishable. All four constables were accused of the same offence, subjected to the same departmental enquiry, and terminated by the same order. The Enquiry Officer’s report, the findings of the disciplinary authority, and the appellate process were identical across all four. The Coordinate Bench had already held that the termination order suffered from procedural defects and lacked sufficient evidentiary foundation to justify dismissal.
"The petitioners in the present writ petitions are similarly situated with the petitioners of the aforenoted two writ petitions."
The Court emphasized that administrative justice cannot permit inconsistent outcomes in factually identical cases. Denying reinstatement to the petitioners while granting it to their co-accused would violate the fundamental principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The State’s concession further removed any doubt regarding the parity of the cases. The Court held that the doctrine of res judicata by analogy applies in administrative law when identical facts and parties are involved across parallel proceedings.
The Court rejected any notion that separate petitions create separate legal entitlements when the underlying facts and orders are the same. The principle of consistency in administrative action is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive requirement of fair governance.
The Verdict
The writ petitions were allowed. The termination order dated 13.05.2020, the appellate order dated 03.06.2020, and the memorial rejection orders dated 29.07.2021 and 30.09.2021 were set aside. The petitioners shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits, including pay, allowances, seniority, and pensionary rights, from the date of termination. The State was directed to complete reinstatement within six weeks from the date of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consistency in Administrative Action Is Mandatory
Practitioners must argue that identical departmental proceedings against co-accused must yield identical outcomes
A decision in one case binds the administration in similar cases, even if not formally binding as precedent
Failure to extend identical relief may invite writ jurisdiction on grounds of arbitrariness under Article 14
Parallel Writ Petitions Do Not Require Re-litigation of Identical Facts
When a coordinate bench has already adjudicated the same facts and set aside an order, subsequent petitions need not reargue the merits
Counsel may rely on the earlier judgment as a binding factual and legal reference
The State cannot resist relief on technical grounds when it concedes parity of cases
Reinstatement Must Include Full Consequential Benefits
Reinstatement is not merely restoration of post but includes back pay, increments, seniority, and pensionary rights from the date of termination
Courts will not permit partial or delayed restoration of benefits
Compliance timelines must be strictly adhered to, with failure attracting contempt proceedings
