Jharkhand High Court
Ramesh Chandra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 27 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5725 of 2017
Ramesh Chandra Singh, aged about 72 years, son of late Deo Sagar Singh,
resident of Churukothi Compound, P.O. Morabadi, P.S. Bariatu, District-
Ranchi. ..... Petitioner.
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial
Taxes Department, Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. &
P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, PIN 834004
2. Under Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand Mantralaya,
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, PIN-834004.
... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the respondent(s): Mr. Gaurang Jagodia, A.C to G.P.-II
------
16/27.02.2023: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
State.
The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the resolution
No.2782/Ranchi dated 08.12.2008, whereby the departmental proceeding was
initiated against the petitioner. Further the punishment order under Section 43(b) of
the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 which was imposed upon the petitioner for
deducting 95 % of the pension was challenged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner takes a very short point in this case.
He submits that department proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in terms
of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1930
read with Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, yet no witnesses were
examined nor any departmental proceeding or any document was exhibited. In
support of this learned counsel for the petitioner refer the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and also order passed by this Court in the case of
Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. passed in W.P.(S) No.5205 of
2018.
On the last occasion, learned counsel for the respondents was directed
to take instruction from his client and verify as to whether the submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioner on the point that no witnesses were examined and
no documents were exhibited was correct or not ? The learned counsel for the
respondents on instructions and after going through the records admits the
aforesaid submissions.
A departmental Eqnuiry Officer is an independent adjudicator. He is a
quasi judicial authority. The said Officer is not supposed to be a representative of
the department or the Disciplinary Authority. His function is to examine the evidence
presented by the Department. Even in the absence of the delinquent employee, the
enquiry officer has to perform, his duty to find out independently as to whether
charges are proved or not. If the case of the department is based on some
documents, those documents also needs to be proved. Some witnesses must be
produced by the department and must be examined to prove the documents relied
by the department. A document which is not proved by oral evidence could not have
been taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion that the charge is proved.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. 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 leveled 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the documents which were produced before the
Enquiry Officer needs to be proved. Paragraph 28 of the aforesaid judgment
reads 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 3. 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."
In both the judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that non-
examination of witnesses, where some documents are to be proved, will result in
violation of the principle of natural justice, which will mean that no reasonable
opportunity has been given to the delinquent to defend his/her case. Thus the
entire proceeding and the enquiry stand vitiated.
Considering the aforesaid judgments, as the case in hand is
squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
admittedly none of the documents were exhibited, nor any witnesses were
examined, I am inclined to quash the entire departmental proceeding including
the order of punishment dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure-10).
The instant writ petition stands allowed.
The consequential benefits arising out of order of this court must
follow immediately.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Rohit/-
