[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Habibur Rahman vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 December, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:35914
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 982 of 2021
------
Habibur Rahman, S/o Late Mohammad Ishaque, R/o Konka Road,
PO-GPO-Ranchi, PS-Lower Bazar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Personal Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department, Project Bhawan, PO-Dhurwa, PS-
Jaganathpur, District-Ranchi.
3. Additional Secretary, Personal Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department, Project Bhawan, PO-Dhurwa, PS-
Jaganathpur, District-Ranchi.
4. Dy. Commissioner, Office of the Dy. Commissioner,
Administrative Building, Kutchery Campus, PO & PS-Kotwali,
District-Ranchi.
5. Block Development Officer, Sonahatu Block, PO & PS-
Sonahatu, District-Ranchi. ... ... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Achyut Keshav, AAG-V
------
st
17/ 01 December,2025
1. The petitioner has challenged the punishment order
dated 13.01.2014 as contained in Memo No.8/रा0-31/2013
whereby he has been inflicted the punishment of stoppage of three
increments with cumulative effect and further a direction was
made for recovery of Rs.1,35,322.24 from the petitioner in 13
installments. Further it was held that during the period of
suspension, he is entitled to receive the suspension allowance only.
The Appellate order dated 21.10.2020 is also under challenged by
which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that in utter violation of principle of natural justice and the
settled proposition of law, the departmental proceeding was
conducted and thereafter, the petitioner was punished. It is his
contention that none of the documents were supplied to the
2025:JHHC:35914
petitioner nor they were exhibited. As per him, no witnesses were
examined by the employer, in the proceeding, to prove the guilt of
the petitioner. In absence of any legal evidence on record, the
petitioner could not have been held guilt and punished in the
departmental proceeding.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
submits that a full-fledged departmental inquiry was held and the
petitioner was found guilty as the charges were proved against the
petitioner. He further submits that since in the departmental
proceeding, the petitioner was held guilty and also the Appellate
Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, this Court has
very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the same.
4. It is his contention that this Court cannot sit in appeal
in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to review the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority.
5. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner was
given charge of the Cashier. During that tenure his performance as
Cashier, according to the respondents, was not up to the mark and
as there was some allegation, a charge-sheet was issued to the
petitioner. The charges which were leveled against the petitioner
are as follows:-
"1. इन्होंने रहकड़पाल के दायित्व का यनर्वहन नह ों यकिा है।
2. इनके द्वारा यदनाों क-31.03.2008 के बाद रहकड़पोंज नह ों यलख गि है, जह
कािव के प्रयि उदास निा िथा कर्त्वव्यह निा का द्यहिक है ।
3. नजारि में सोंधाररि रहकड़पोंयजिहों का दै यनक अद्यिन प्रयर्यििहों के साथ जााँ च के
यलए प्रधान यलयपक-सह-लेखापाल के समक्ष प्रस्तुि नह ों यकिा जाना सरकार रायि
का अस्थाि गबन है।
4. इनके द्वारा कुल 25,32,951.38 /- रुपिे का प्रभार नह ों स प
ों ा जाना,
सरकार रायि का गबन है िथा 2,500/- रूपिे क गलि प्रयर्यि सामान्य
रहकड़पोंज में क गि है।
5. प्रखण्ड के स मेन्ट गहदाम िथा एसजेआरर्ाई के िहि सोंधाररि खाद्यान्न गहदाम
का प्रभार नह ों स प
ों ा जाना, सरकार सामग्र का गबन है ।"
If translated in English, the gist of charges will be as follows:-
1. He has not discharged his duties as a cashier.
2. He has not maintained the cash register after 31.03.2008, which is
indicative of his apathy towards work and dereliction of duty.
2025:JHHC:35914
3. Not presenting the cash registers maintained in the treasury with
daily updated entries before the Chief Clerk-cum-Accountant for ver-
ification is temporary embezzlement of government money.
4. Not handing over the charge of Rs. 25,32,951.38/- by him is em-
bezzlement of government money and wrong entry of Rs. 2,500/-
has been made in the general cash book.
5. Not handing over the charge of the block's cement warehouse and
the food grain warehouse maintained under SJRY is embezzlement
of government material."
6. After the charge-sheet was filed, an Enquiry Officer was
appointed and so was the Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer
submitted his report which is dated 07.08.2013. After the report
was submitted, the second show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner. After receiving the reply to the second show cause
notice, the punishment was inflicted. The petitioner preferred an
appeal which was also dismissed.
7. After going through the inquiry report, I find that no
witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding to prove
the charges which was levelled against the petitioner. Though
some documents were produced, but the same was not exhibited,
rather was placed and tendered by the Presenting officer.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Roop Singh
Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others", (2009) 2
Supreme Court Cases 570, has held that mere production of
document is not enough. The content of the document which the
Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer wants to rely upon must
be proved by examining witnesses. It has been held that some
evidence should be brought on record to prove the guilt of the
delinquent employee. It has been held that there should be some
evidence on record. It is necessary to quote paragraph Nos. 14, 15
and 19 of the aforesaid judgment.
"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
2025:JHHC:35914
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 Cases 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 an evidence which is non est in the eye of the law, the
civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.
This Court emphasized that a finding can be arrived at by
the enquiry officer if there is some evidence on record. It
was furthermore found that the order of the appellate
authority suffered from non-application of mind.
9. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"Satyendra Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr." reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 has held that to prove the guilt of
an employee, there has to be some material on record. The
documents need to be proved and the contents to be proved by
examining witnesses.
10. In the case of "Satendra Singh (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court also heavily relied upon paragraph Nos.14, 15 &
19 of the judgments passed in the Roop Singh Negi's case.
11. Admittedly, the Enquiry Officer is a Quashi-Judicial
Authority and independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be
a representative of the department or the Disciplinary Authority.
He has to examine the evidence presented by the department and
come to an independent finding whether the charge against the
delinquent employee stands proved or not. The charge against the
delinquent employee has to be proved by oral or documentary
evidence. If it is by a documentary evidence, then the contents of
2025:JHHC:35914
the said document has to be exhibited and proved by leading oral
evidence. Merely tendering of the document cannot be said to be
bringing a document on record for taking cognizance by the
Enquiry Officer.
12. In this case, admittedly, since no documentary or oral
evidence has been led by the department during the enquiry
process, the entire process is gets vitiated.
13. Thus, I am inclined to allow this writ application.
14. The Punishment Order 13.01.2014 and the Appellate
Order dated 21.10.2020 are set aside and quashed as in absence
of proper evidence it cannot be concluded that the guilt of the
petitioner stands proved.
15. Since the petitioner has already superannuated, it will
not be proper to pass an order for de novo inquiry.
16. With the above observation, the writ application is
allowed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
01st December, 2025
Sandeep-cp2
Uploaded on 03/12/2025
