Jharkhand High Court
Vinod Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 1 April, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:9457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 5388 of 2019
----------
Vinod Kumar, aged 64 years, son of late Panna Singh, resident of Flat No. 2/A, Jeevandeep Enclave, Bank Colony, Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. .......... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Sachivalaya, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.s. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Sachivalaya, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.s. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Sachivalaya, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.s. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Sachivalaya, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.s. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
.......... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr.SC-I
Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr.SC-I
----------
20/ 01.04.2026 Heard the parties.
2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
a. To quash the notification dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure-7), issued by Secretary, Road Construction Department, Ranchi whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the notification dated 27.03.2015 of the respondent-Department, has been rejected.
b. To quash the notification dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure-2), issued by the 4th respondent whereby petitioner has been downgraded to the minimum stage in his scale of pay and post as well as for recovery of a sum of Rs.69,40,098/-.1
2026:JHHC:9457
3. Earlier, the petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2557 of 2014 challenging the order of punishment dated 27.03.2015; however, the said case stood dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file appeal before the appropriate forum against the order of punishment.
4. Petitioner again moved this Court in W.P.(S). No. 3697 of 2018 against the order of penalty as well as the appellate order dated 19.04.2018 and the said writ was partly allowed on 05.03.2019 and appellate order was set aside with an observation that the order is cryptic in nature and has not incorporated reason of rejection.
5. The brief facts as narrated in the writ application are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer and he joined the post on 21.07.1981 and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2002. By resolution dated 14.02.2012, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet containing as many as four charges. The petitioner submitted his reply on 05.03.2012. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was conducted and after conclusion of the same, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding therein that charge No. 1 was proved but charge No. 2 regarding 49 invoices could not be proved. So far as charge No. 3 is concerned, the same was also not proved. Thereafter, 2nd show-cause notice was issued on 26.02.2014 to which the petitioner replied on 27.06.2014. However, without considering his reply, vide notification dated 27.03.2015, order of punishment was issued, which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 19.04.2018.
6. Since the order dated 19.04.2018, did not assign any reason for rejection of appeal, the petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 3697 of 2018 and this Court vide order dated 05.03.2019, set aside the said appellate order and remitted the matter to the appellate authority to consider the appeal of petitioner and pass an appropriate detail reasoned order considering the 2 2026:JHHC:9457 grounds raised by the petitioner and dispose of the appeal on merits within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed an appeal before the appellate authority; however, the appellate authority vide its order dated 30.07.2019 rejected the appeal and directed to recover a sum of Rs.69,40,098.87.
Throwing challenge to the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ application.
8. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has made following three submissions amongst other:
i) No oral witness has been examined to prove the charge.
ii) Even the entire charges arise out of CBI Case No. RC-3(A)-
2010(R), wherein charge-sheet has not been filed against the petitioner due to lack of sufficient evidence (Annexure-8).
iii) The impugned order is non-speaking and therefore, the impugned order be quashed and set aside.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents though argues on merit that there was a grave charge against the petitioner but he could not dispute the admitted fact that no oral witness has been examined in order to prove the charge/documents in the departmental proceeding and also the fact that in the criminal case the petitioner has not been charge-sheeted.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, since no witness has been examined in this case which is evident from charge-sheet (Annexure-1/1) itself which gives the list of evidence and only mentions about four documents. Admittedly, since not disputed, no oral witness has been examined in this case accordingly, on this score alone the impugned order is vitiated.
32026:JHHC:9457
11. Even the Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that in absence of any oral witness in order to prove the documents, the charge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
12. The issue of examination of oral witness has been dealt repeatedly by the Hon'ble Apex Court right from the case of Roop Singh Negi1 and further reiterated in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha2. However, it has been seen in many cases that the authorities have not yet understood the importance of oral evidence.
13. In the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another3, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory. Reference in this regard may be held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank9 and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat.10
14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi, this Court held that mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof reads as under:--
"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left. ...
19. The judgment and decree passed against the respondent in Narinder Mohan Arya case [(2006) 4 SCC 713 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 840] had attained finality. In the said suit, the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same was held to have been based on no evidence. The appellant therein in the aforementioned situation filed a writ petition questioning the validity of the disciplinary proceeding, the same was dismissed. This Court held that when a crucial finding like forgery was arrived at on evidence which is non 1 (2009) 2 SCC 570 2 (2010) 2 SCC 772 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 4 2026:JHHC:9457 est in the eye of the law, the civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. This Court emphasised that a finding can be arrived at by the enquiry officer if there is some evidence on record. ..."
(emphasis supplied)
15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence presented by the Department to find out whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha are as follows:--
"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/ Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.
....
33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent has been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he has been condemned unheard as the inquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a single witness has been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. The High Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the entire proceedings are vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the charge-sheet."
(emphasis supplied)"
14. Recently, the same issue was raised before Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Pachayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh4 and the Hon'ble Apex Court after going through several of its previous judgment has reiterated the law as under:
"13. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, it was held that an officer conducting an enquiry has a duty to arrive at findings in respect of the charges upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. It has also been held therein that any evidence collected during investigation by an investigating officer against the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceedings.
14. What follows from a conjoint reading of the above two decisions is and what applies here is that, 'materials brought on record by the parties' (to which consideration in the enquiry ought to be confined) mean only such materials can be considered which are brought on record in a manner known to law. Such materials can then be considered legal evidence, which can be acted upon. Though the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not strictly applicable to departmental enquiries, which are not judicial proceedings, nevertheless, the principles flowing therefrom can be applied in specific cases. Evidence tendered by witnesses must be recorded in the presence of the delinquent employee, he should be given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and no document should be relied on by the prosecution without giving copy thereof to the delinquent - all these basic principles of fair play have their root in such Act. In such light, the documents referred to in the list of documents forming part of the annexures to the 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891 5 2026:JHHC:9457 chargesheet, on which the department seeks to rely in the enquiry, cannot be treated as legal evidence worthy of forming the basis for a finding of guilt if the contents of such documents are not spoken to by persons competent to speak about them. A document does not prove itself. In the enquiry, therefore, the contents of the relied-on documents have to be proved by examining a witness having knowledge of the contents of such document and who can depose as regards its authenticity. In the present case, no such exercise was undertaken by producing any witness.
15. We may further refer to the decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha17 where disciplinary proceedings were drawn up against the respondent, Saroj Kumar Sinha, under the 1999 Rules itself with which we are concerned. Paragraphs 26 to 30 and 33 of the said decision being relevant are quoted below:
"26. The first inquiry report is vitiated also on the ground that the inquiry officers failed to fix any date for the appearance of the respondent to answer the charges. Rule 7(x) clearly provides as under:
'7. (x) Where the charged government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding in spite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the inquiry officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the inquiry officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged government servant.'
27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge.
28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.
29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee.
30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is 6 2026:JHHC:9457 manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.
***
33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent has been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he has been condemned unheard as the inquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a single witness has been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. The High Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the entire proceedings are vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the charge- sheet."
(emphasis ours)
16. It appears that the appellant is yet to take lessons despite the admonition in Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra). The same kind of omissions and commissions that led to setting aside of the order of punishment imposed being upheld by this Court were repeated in the present case."
15. Even otherwise, the basis of entire charge-sheet for which CBI case was registered against the petitioner, in the said case also petitioner has been discharged.
16. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, the order of punishment as contained in notification dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure-2) and the appellate order as contained in notification dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure-7), are hereby, quashed and set aside. Since the petitioner has already retired in the year 2015; as such, no fruitful purpose would be served by remitting the matter back in order to cure the procedural irregularities. The respondents are directed to give consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
17. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) 1st April, 2026 Kunal/-
Uploaded on 16.04.2026 7