Pinki Pal vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 30 July, 2025

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Pinki Pal vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 30 July, 2025

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                            2025:JHHC:21595


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P.(S) No. 882 of 2025
                                  ---

Pinki Pal, aged about 45 years, wife of Birendra Kumar, resident of Qr. No. 181, Sector-4/F, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand.

....Petitioner VERSUS

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.

2. The Special Secretary, Department of Health, Medical, Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.

3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical, Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.

.....Respondents

---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner(s) : M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Arpan Mishra, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V

02/30.07.2025 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent

- State, at length.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order as contained in Memo No.18/Aarop-01-62/2022 362 (18) dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), by which she has been punished. Her appeal is pending, which has not yet been disposed of.

3. The petitioner is an Ophthalmologist, and is an employee of the State.

4. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for which charge-sheet was issued vide Memo No.18/Aarop-01-62/2022-404(18) dated 13.07.2022.

The allegation in the departmental charge-sheet is that the employer i.e. the State, had obtained the data 1 2025:JHHC:21595 from the "Jharkhand State Aarogya Society (JSAS)", in respect of "Ayushman Bharat Chief Minister's People's Health Scheme (CM-JAY)", and on analysis of the same, it was culled out that the petitioner had operated 120 patients in the Sadar Hospital, Bokaro, which is a Government Hospital and 1357 patients at Rnb Hospital and Pal Eye Research Center, Bokaro, which is a Private Hospital. It has been alleged in the charge-sheet that the petitioner has committed a misconduct by operating patients at a Private Hospital though she is a Government Doctor, for which she is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

5. To prove the charge against the petitioner, a Memo of Evidence has been attached along with the charge- sheet, which is at Appendix-3. In the said Appendix, there is reference of only two documents i.e. (a) Photocopy of the list of data received in respect of Ayushman Bharat Chief Minister's People's Health Scheme (CM-JAY) and (b) Copy of Letter No.666(3) dated 15.07.2016 issued by the Department of Health, Medical, Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. Based on these two documents only, the department seeks to establish the charge against the petitioner.

6. In the departmental proceeding, an Enquiry Officer was appointed.

The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The enquiry report is at Annexure-4 to the writ petition. As per the said report, there is a specific finding to the effect that there is no evidence to substantiate that the petitioner has started or has done any private practice. Further, in the enquiry report, it has been reflected that the Presenting Officer had given his opinion that the operation which was conducted by him in the Private Nursing Home was beyond the official duty hours and for which, Government work was not hampered. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has held that 2 2025:JHHC:21595 the petitioner is guilty as because he has conducted the operation in a private hospital and thus, violated clause-5 of Letter No.3/Stha. D-01-166/15 666(3) dated 15.07.2016.

7. Based on the aforesaid enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority after issuing the second show cause notice, punished the petitioner. The punishment is of stoppage of five annual increment with cumulative effect, which is a major punishment.

8. The Letter/Circular No.3/Stha. D-01-166/15 666(3) dated 15.07.2016 is part of the charge-sheet. Clause- 5 of the said provision provides that any Doctor cannot give his service in a Private Hospital / Nursing Home / any Diagnostic Centre. This Letter / Circular was issued taking note of the fact of private practice which is being done by the Government Doctors. After considering all the aspects, the Government, as per the Letter / Circular, has prescribed that within the duty hours of a Doctor, he cannot indulge in any private practice. If he wants to indulge in any private practice, that should be beyond the duty hours, including the duty hours of the OPD. Further, there is a prohibition that within 500 metres of the Government Hospital in urban area and within 250 metres of the Government Hospital in rural area, the Doctor cannot do a practice nor he can practice privately in his official residence, nor he can give services to any indoor patients elsewhere.

9. The charge which according to the Enquiry Officer is proved that the petitioner has given his service in a private hospital which is prohibited as per the Letter/ Circular No.666(3) dated 15.07.2016.

10. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding and the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. It is the duty of the Enquiry Officer to arrive at the finding of guilt against the 3 2025:JHHC:21595 delinquent officer based on evidence which is duly collected. If the Enquiry Officer wants to get the charge proved based on some documents, those documents must be proved by some witnesses. Though, the Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable so far as departmental proceeding is concerned but when a document needs to be looked into, it has to be proved by an oral evidence. Witnesses must be examined to prove the said documents. Merely tendering of the document and not proving the contents thereof is not sufficient to prove the charge in a departmental proceeding. The document itself cannot be treated to be an evidence until and unless the same is proved.

The aforesaid principle has been led down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC

570. The said proposition has been reiterated recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325, wherein the Enquiry Officer relied upon a document substantiating the irregular transaction, which constituted the basis of enquiry. In the said case, no witnesses were examined to prove the said document in order to establish the charge against the delinquent employee. Recording the aforesaid fact in para-13 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of major punishment is mandatory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter referred to para-14 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra). It is necessary to quote para-14, 15 and 19 of the judgment of Roop Singh Negi (supra), which are as hereunder:-

2025:JHHC:21595 "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 5 2025:JHHC:21595 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 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. ..."

Further, in para-17 of the judgment of Satyendra Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to a conclusion that in a proceeding which led to major penalty, the same gets vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law in absence of any oral evidence whatsoever recorded by the department in support of the charges. It is necessary to quote para-17, which reads as hereunder:-

"17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi and Nirmala J. Jhala, we are of the firm view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges."

11. Further, on 3rd February, 2016, the Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, had issued a notification. This notification is known as the "Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016"

(hereinafter referred to as "CCA Rules, 2016). The Rules 6 2025:JHHC:21595 have been promulgated by exercising power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

Part-VI of the said Rules provides for the procedure for imposing penalties, which starts from Rule 17 onwards. As per clause-17 (3) of the CCA Rules, 2016, a Disciplinary Authority shall draw up the charge containing the substance of imputation of misconduct; the charge should be definite and there should be distinct article of charge. Further, the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each charge shall contain the statement of relevant facts, list of such document and list of such witnesses by whom the article of charge are proposed to be sustained. It is necessary to quote Rule 17 (3) of the CCA Rules, 2016, which reads as hereunder:-

"17. Procedure for imposing major penalties :-

1) ...............

2) ...............

3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government Servant under this rule, the Disciplinary Authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up i. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour as a definite and distinct article of charge.

ii. A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain :-

a) A statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government Servant;

b) A list of such document by which, and a list of such witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained."

2025:JHHC:21595 As per Rule 17 (3) (ii) (b) of the CCA Rules, 2016, the Article of Charge must contain the list of documents by which the Authority wants to prove the charge and list of witnesses also.

12. Thus, the provision may be interpreted in a manner that the list of documents itself is not enough to prove the charge. Those documents must be proved and exhibited through oral evidence. This provision i.e. Rule 17 (3) (ii) (b) of the CCA Rules, 2016, has to be read in terms of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) and Satyendra Singh (supra). This clause cannot be read as if only placing the documents is enough to prove the charge.

13. When I go through this case, I find that admittedly no oral evidence has been adduced, which is apparent from the enquiry report itself. Further, there is nothing in the counter affidavit to suggest that any oral evidence was adduced to prove any of the document, based on which the department chose to establish the charge against the petitioner.

Only on the basis of some data, allegedly received from "Jharkhand State Aarogya Society", the charge of the petitioner was established in the departmental proceeding. From where the data came, who has provided the said data and what is there in the said data have not been proved by any oral evidence. Further, who was the custodian of the said data has also not been proved. In one word, not even a single oral evidence has been adduced to prove the aforesaid data and the letter, which has been issued by the Government.

Thus, this case in hand is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) and Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra).

2025:JHHC:21595

14. Considering what has been discussed and held above, the impugned order as contained in Memo No.18/Aarop-01-62/2022 362(18) dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby punishment was imposed upon the petitioner, is set aside. The consequential benefits be accorded to the petitioner.

15. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) jk 9

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court