Jharkhand High Court
Braj Shankar Prasad Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief … on 11 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:23325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 986 of 2015
---------
Braj Shankar Prasad Sinha, aged about 70 years, son of Late
Chaturbhuj Prasad Singh, resident of Village Gouria Wana, P.O.
Mananpure Morsand, P.S. Runisaidpur, District Sitamarhi (Bihar)
….Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Project
Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Hon’ble Governor, Jharkhand, through the Principal
Secretary, Department of Personal, Administrative Reforms
and Rajbhasha, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Personal, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Project Building, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O.,
P.S. and District Dumka.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O., P.S. and District
Dumka. ….Respondents
———
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
———
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahil, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Hemant Kr. Gupta, Advocate
———
C.A.V. ON: 30.06.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 11/08/2025
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner praying therein for quashing the resolution issued vide
memo No. 413/Ranchi dated 15.01.2014 by the Deputy Secretary,
Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha,
Government of Jharkhand, issued pursuant to the order of
Hon’ble Governor, Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder, the
petitioner has been compulsorily retired and 30% amount has also
been deducted from his pension under Section 49 (IV-a) of Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.
The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the
appellate order dated 27.10.2014, issued under the signature of
Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and
1
2025:JHHC:23325
whereunder, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the
punishment order dated 15.01.2014 has been rejected.
3. The brief facts as per the pleadings are that the
petitioner was primarily inducted in service of Bihar Government
as Stenographer Class-1 in Patna Secretariat on 10.04.1973.
Thereafter, the petitioner was selected for administrative service of
Bihar through Bihar Public Service Commission in a nomination
quota on the ground of meritorious service on 16.07.1991 and
appointed as Deputy Collector at Arah (Bhojpur) on 16.07.1991.
In the year 2007, when he was posted as Circle Officer
in Shikari Para Block and was in additional charge of Circle
Officer of Raneshwar Block, then vide Letter No.495 dated
17.08.2007 of Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, a
memo of charge contained in Form-D was issued against the
petitioner through Letter No.3723/jkn dated 08.11.2007 of
Secretary, Department of Finance and Land Reforms, Jharkhand
and vide departmental Letter No.8216 dated 18.12.2007
explanation was sought from him.
The memo of charges (Annexure-1) issued against the
petitioner was containing 22 points against which the petitioner
submitted his explanation vide letter no. 16 dated 04.01.2008
(Annexure-2) denying the charges levelled against him.
Thereafter, second show cause was issued to the
petitioner vide Letter No. 9798 dated 07.10.2013 (Annexure-3).
Again, the petitioner replied to the second show cause stating that
the conducting officer invited his explanation and on that Deputy
Commissioner, Dumka was given time till 09.04.2013 to submit
opinion. On non-submission of the opinion, conducting officer
announced the departmental proceeding to come to end, but on
submission of report by Deputy Commissioner beyond the
stipulated period i.e. on 16.04.2013, without giving copy of that
report to the petitioner or discussing with the petitioner, he
2
2025:JHHC:23325
submitted the enquiry report. It has also been stated in his show
cause reply that he was not given the chance to cross-examine the
witnesses, nor he was given opportunity to produce the
documentary evidence which is illegal and against the principles
of natural justice.
Thereafter, vide resolution issued vide memo No.
413/Ranchi dated 15.01.2014 (Annexure-5); pursuant to the
order of Hon’ble Governor, Jharkhand, the petitioner has been
compulsorily retired and 30% amount has also been deducted
from his pension under Section 49 (IV-a) of Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before the
Hon’ble Governor, Jharkhand under the provision of Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules which was also
dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2014 (Annexure-7) and the
punishment order dated 15.01.2014 has been sustained.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart
from merits of the case, there are certain procedural irregularities
which vitiated the entire departmental proceeding. He further
submits that in the instant application, the petitioner was not
given any opportunity to produce documentary evidence and
cross-examine the witnesses. Though, as per Rule 55 of Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, no order of
dismissal, removal/compulsory retirement shall be passed on a
member of service unless he has been informed in writing.
He further submits that in the instant case, he has
specifically requested the inquiry officer to cross examine the
witnesses which is evident from Annexure-4; relevant paragraph
at page 59 of the amended writ application, which clearly
indicates that the petitioner has specifically requested the I.O. to
cross-examine the witnesses, but the I.O. has not given any
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
3
2025:JHHC:23325
He further submits that none of the documents has
been proved in the inquiry proceedings, inasmuch as, the same
was not proved by any witnesses which is against the law laid
down in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank1
and State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha2 as such, the impugned
order should be quashed and set aside.
Before concluding, he lastly submits that since the
petitioner has retired in the year 2014 itself; as such, after
quashing of the impugned order, the consequential benefits may
be directed to be paid to this petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is no procedural
irregularity and the petitioner has committed the offence as
alleged in the charge-sheet which was duly proved by the inquiry
officer; as such, no interference is required.
6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after
going through the documents available on record and the
averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that in
para-33 of the amended writ application, petitioner has alleged
against the then Director, National Planning Programme, Dumka,
who was also Incharge of the inquiry team. Further in para 34, the
petitioner has taken specific stand that petitioner has not been
given proper opportunity to produce the documentary evidence
and cross-examine the witnesses. However, the same is replied in
the counter affidavit of the respondents in para 50 and after
perusing the reply, it is evident that the same is vague and does
not deliberate the contention of the petitioner. For brevity, Para-33
& 34 of the Writ Application is extracted hereinbelow:
“33. That it is stated and submitted that, in fact, the petitioner
was charged on the basis of malicious report of the then Director,1
(2009) 2 SCC 570
2
(2010) 2 SCC 7724
2025:JHHC:23325National Planning Program, Dumka, who was in-charge of enquiry
team and was annoyed with petitioner as he was not properly given
hospitality by the petitioner, since petitioner was busy in flood relief.
34. That it is stated and submitted that the petitioner has not
been given proper opportunity to produce the documentary evidence
and cross examine the witnesses though as per Rule 55 of Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, no order of
dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement shall be passed on a
member of service unless he has been informed in writing of the
grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded
an adequate opportunity of defending himself.”
Further, Para 50 of the Counter affidavit dated
08.07.2024 is extracted hereinbelow:
“50. That the statement made in paragraph no. 34 & 35 of the writ
petition is totally misconceived hence denied and it is most humbly
stated and submitted that the entire departmental proceeding against
the petitioner has been conducted in terms of law whereby fair
opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to defend his case.
The petitioner was thereafter served with the second show cause
which contains the details of the penalty to be imposed upon the
petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no violation of Rule 55
of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.”
7. From record, it further transpires that the petitioner
has requested time and again to the inquiry officer to call for
records in original and examine the witnesses on the basis of
which charges were framed against him, but the inquiry officer
concluded the inquiry in haste without calling for the records in
original or examining the witnesses and also opportunity was not
given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses.
This specific averment has been replied by the
respondents in para-52 wherein they have not given any specific
reply; rather they said that the departmental proceeding awarding
the punishment is neither illegal nor unsustainable. For brevity
para 52 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereinbelow:
“52. That with respect to statement made in paragraph no. 37 of the
writ petition it is most humbly stated and submitted the petitioner
has been provided ample opportunity of hearing during the
departmental proceeding, the averments made in these paragraph is
to be proved by the petitioner himself. However it is submitted that
the petitioner has in no manner been prejudiced in the departmental
proceeding on ground of non supply of documents.”
8. The purpose of referring the specific stand of both the
5
2025:JHHC:23325
parties is to ascertain as to the allegation of the petitioner and the
veracity of the inquiry proceeding. In crux, the grievance of the
petitioner is that during the course of inquiry proceeding, he had
specifically requested the inquiry officer to cross-examine the
witnesses and further, even in the reply to the second show cause
notice, he has specifically contended that the inquiry officer has
not given a chance to the delinquent to cross-examine the
departmental witnesses, but unfortunately, the disciplinary
authority has not given any consideration with regard to the said
objection.
9. As a matter of fact, in the entire inquiry proceeding, it
does not transpire that the documents, which have been relied
upon by the respondents, have ever been proved as per the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh
Negi (supra) and Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra). The law as laid down
is very clear that mere submission of documents will not suffice
the purpose and it has to be proved by oral evidence. Same law
has been reiterated in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha. For brevity,
para 14 of Roop Singh Negi (supra) is extracted hereinbelow:
“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.”
Further in para 28 of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra)
Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“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.
6
2025:JHHC:23325
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.”
10. After going through the inquiry report, it appears that
the documents have not been proved by any oral evidence, rather
no witnesses have been examined on behalf of the respondents in
order to prove the charge. Thus, in crux, it appears that the entire
allegations have been proved on the basis of the report of the
Deputy Commissioner, but none of the witnesses were there to
prove the charge; as such, it cannot be deemed to be proved.
11. It further appears from para-25 of the amended writ
application that the petitioner has specifically stated that after
petitioner filed his reply to the second show cause and the Deputy
Commissioner, Dumka was given time till 09.04.2013 to submit
his opinion; on non-submission of the opinion, the conducting
officer closed the departmental proceeding. However, the Deputy
Commissioner submitted his report beyond the stipulated time
that too without giving copy of the report to the petitioner and
thus, the petitioner was not given opportunity to produce
documentary evidence, nor he was allowed to cross-examine the
witnesses.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case the instant writ application stands allowed and resolution
issued vide memo No. 413/Ranchi dated 15.01.2014, is hereby,
quashed and set aside. Further, the appellate order dated
7
2025:JHHC:23325
27.10.2014; whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been
dismissed against the punishment order, is also quashed and set
aside.
13. Normally, in such type of cases; where there is
procedural irregularity, the matter should have been remitted to
the start the proceedings afresh from the stage, where there was
irregularity; but in the instant case, the Petitioner has
superannuated in the years 2014 itself; as such, no fruitful
purpose would be satisfied in remitting the case to the Inquiry
Officer at this belated stage when the Petitioner is now more than
70 years.
Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to give all
consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
14. Pending I.A. if any, also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
vikas/-
N.A.F.R.
8