Jharkhand High Court
Shio Dayal Saxena vs 2. The Joint Secretary on 22 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1980 of 2017
Shio Dayal Saxena... ... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary
1.
2. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Secretary,Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi. ... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
For the respondent(s): AC to GP-I
------
06/22.02.2023: The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing
Notification No. 5512(S) dated 26.8.2016, whereby the appeal preferred by the
petitioner against the order of punishment vide Notification No. 7765(S) dated
12.11.2015 has been dismissed. It has further been prayed to quash the
Notification No. 7765(S) dated 12.11.2015, whereby, the departmental proceeding
initiated against the petitioner has been disposed of and punishment has been
imposed, directing the petitioner to discharge his duty in minimum scale of pay of
his post.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been
punished, yet not a single witness has been examined before the Enquiry Officer.
He further submits that when no witness has been examined nor even a single
person has exhibited the documents, the entire proceedings can be said to be bad
in law. He also submits that one of the co-delinquent moved before this Court in
WPS No. 2389 of 2027 taking the similar point, in which, this Court has set aside
the punishment order considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Roop Singh Negi -versus- Punjab National Bank and Others,
reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570"..
3. Learned counsel for the respondents-State, after going through the
writ petition and the counter affidavit, admits that no witness has been examined
before the Enquiry Officer.
4. After going through the record and after hearing the parties I find that
this writ petition can be disposed of on very short point which the petitioner has
raised. The petitioner has raised the point that no witness has been examined in
this case. This fact has also been admitted by the State.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Roop Singh Negi -
versus Punjab National Bank and Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570", in
para-14 has held 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."
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thus has held that some evidence should
have been brought on record to show that the petitioner was involved in
misconduct, for which he has been proceeded against. Merely tendering the
documents is not sufficient.
7. In this case, merely some documents and the inspection report have
been tendered. Further, the petitioner was not party to the said inspection.
8. Thus, I find that the entire procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer is
bad in law. Thus, the punishment order as contained in Notification No. 7765(S)
dated 12.11.2015 and consequent appellate order dated 26.8.2016 as contained
in Notification No. 5512(S) are set aside and quashed.
9. Thus, this writ application stands allowed.
Anu/-CP2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
