The Union Of India v. Mantu Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7535 of 2026 ====================================================== 1.
The Union of India through the Director General, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2.
The Post Master General, Eastern Region, Bhagalpur- 812001. 3.
The Director of Postal Services, Eastern Region, Bhagalpur- 812001. 4.
The Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharsa Postal Division, Saharsa852201. 5.
The Inspector of Post, West Sub-Division, Saharsa- 852201. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Mantu Kumar, Son of Sushil Yadav, Resident of village Narayanpur, Post Office Narayanpur via Mahishi, Police Station Nauhatta, District Saharsa and now dismissed from the post of GDSMD, Gangora Bihara B.O.a/c with Panchgachhia S.O., Saharsa Postal Division, Saharsa- 852216. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG Mr. Kumar Ravish, CGC Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH) Date : 14-07-2026 The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2025, passed by the learned Central
2/4 Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the "learned CAT") in O.A. No. 050/00596/2024, whereby and whereunder the O.A. has been allowed with the following directions:- (i) The dismissal order, i.e. Memo No. A-G Bihara BO/L dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure-A/6), Appellate order, i.e. Memo No. A-5/Saharsa/Appeal/Mantu Kumar/G. Bihara BO/2023 dated 28.12.2023 (Annexure-A/8) and Revisional order, i.e. Memo No. Vig/ER/RP/ GDS/Mantu Kr/SHS/2024 dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure-A/10) are quashed and set aside;
(ii) As a consequence the applicant is to be reinstated with consequential relief to be decided by the respondents as per the law and procedure for this intervening period that is from the dismissal to the reinstatement. The respondents are at liberty to complete the inquiry by suitably modifying the list of witnesses and affording the applicant an opportunity to cross examine the author/signatory to the very basis of the charge leveled against him mentioned at point (d) above.
2. We may at the inception note that since we do not intend to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.12.2025, no notice is being issued to the sole respondent.
3. At the very outset, Dr. K.N. Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India, who is appearing in the present case for the petitioners, has submitted
3/4 that now the petitioners do not intend to assail the impugned order dated 12.12.2025, however they are seeking a clarification regarding the observations made in paragraph No. 7 (a) & (b) of the impugned order which are not factually totally correct as would be apparent from a bare perusal of the documents referred to therein, which form part of the written statement filed by the petitioners herein before the learned CAT and have been placed at running page Nos. 147 & 149 to 151 of the brief.
4. It is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharsa Dn., Saharsa had written a letter dated 05.10.2016 to the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna (Bihar) regarding reverification of mark-sheets of 28 persons, including the respondent herein, who were engaged on the post of GDS. In response to the said letter dated 05.10.2016, the Examination Controller, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna (Bihar) vide letter dated 14.05.2018, while enclosing a list of 28 candidates, had informed the Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharsa Dn., Saharsa that as far as the candidates listed at serial Nos. 01 to 15 of the said list are concerned, the mark-sheets have been found to be uniform while the examination result of the candidates placed at serial Nos. 16 & 17 has been cancelled, whereas the
4/4 mark-sheets of the candidates named at serial Nos. 18 to 28, including that of the sole respondent herein, have not been issued by the Board's Office.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, we are of the considered opinion that the contents of any document cannot be altered by any observation made in a judicial order and the same is not only required to be considered on its own face value by the Inquiry Officer but is also required to be proved by examining a competent witness by adhering to the rules of evidence.
6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off as not pressed, however with the aforesaid observations. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) (Rana Vikram Singh, J) Praveen-II/Rakesh AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 16.07.2026 Transmission Date N/A