Jharkhand High Court
Pramod Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 September, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:28815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1208 of 2025
------
Pramod Ram, son of late Bishnu Dev Ram, resident of village Kukahi, P.O
Kukahi, P.S. Haidar Nagar, District Palamau (Jharkhand)
.... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project
Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project
Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project
Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra. .... Respondent(s)
-------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajendra Krishna, S.B. Gupta and Manish Kr. Choudhary, Advocates.
For the State Ms. P. Priyamvada, AC to GP-V.
------
05/18.09.2025: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Gyapank-5/Aarop-1-19/2016-18458 (HRMS) Ranchi dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure-7) passed by respondent No. 4, whereby, the penalty of withholding of three increments with non- cumulative effect is imposed upon the petitioner as punishment.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment which has been inflicted upon the petitioner vide the order as contained in Memo dated 09.12.2022 is absolutely illegal and against the materials on record. He further submits that no witness has been produced in support of the charge, which has been framed against the petitioner. He further adds that no punishment could have been imposed upon the petitioner without following due process of law. After five years the matter was enquired suo moto and charges were framed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra on 19.12.2016 and after three years of framing of charge, the Departmental Proceeding was initiated vide letter dated 28.11.2019 and a Retired IAS Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer, which is also illegal and perverse.
2.He further adds that the chargesheet which has been drawn by the Deputy Commissioner was sent to the Deputy Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha vide letter No. 709 dated 19.12.2016 has not been approved by the State Government and in absence of the same, the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is vitiated. According to him, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is perverse. He lastly submits that neither evidence/exhibits were enclosed along with the charge sheet which is contrary to the statutory Rules of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 2016 nor any documents were exhibited during the enquiry nor any witnesses were also examined on behalf of the prosecution.
4. Counsel for the State submits that a Departmental Proceeding was initiated and thereafter the enquiry report was submitted, finding the petitioner to be guilty. She also submits that the show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner in compliance with the principle of natural justice, thereafter, the impugned order of punishment was passed. He submits that there is no illegality in the entire process.
5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner was appointed as a Block Development Officer on 1.1.2009 at Chatra. Thereafter he joined as Circle officer, Chatra in additional charge. In the year 2010, a Mutation application being Mutation Case No. 71/2010-11 has been preferred by M/s Nilanchal Iron and Power Ltd. Company on the basis of registered sale deed being Sale Deed No. 5829/5777 dated 29.7.2010. The matter was enquired and verified by the Halka Karamchari and the Circle Inspector, Chatra, the matter was brought before the petitioner with opinion report of Halka Karamchari and the Circle Inspector, Chatra. Thereafter the the petitioner has passed the mutation order in Mutation Case No. 71/2020-
11. Thereafter, after five years, the matter was enquired suo moto and charges had been framed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra.
6. In the Departmental Proceeding, Enquriy Officer was appointed to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry report has been brought on record in the counter affidavit, which is at Annexure-C. After going through the enquiry report, I find that no evidence was led by the Department to prove the charges. From the enquiry report, though some documents have been relied upon, but there is nothing to suggest that who are the person, who has proved the said documents. Even, in a Departmental Proceeding, though the Evidence Act is strictly not applicable, 3. yet the documents which are presented and based on which the charges are said to be established, needs to be proved by oral evidence. In this case neither any person has proved the documents nor any oral evidence has been led to prove the charge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 has observed that it is necessary to prove the charge by adducing evidence. Paragraph- 14 of the aforesaid judgments 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."
7. The said judgment has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325. Paragraphs 14 and 17 of the said judgment read as under.
'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 4. 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 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)
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."
8. In this case, as no witnesses have been adduced, the Enquiry Proceeding is vitiated, so is the enquiry report.
9. Considering the aforesaid discussions, this application stands allowed. Consequently, the order as contained in Gyapank-5/Aarop-1- 19/2016-18458 (HRMS) Ranchi dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 4 is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for consequential relief(s).
18th September, 2025 Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)