Savitri Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2572 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Savitri Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              WP(S) No.2025 of 2018
                                       -----
           Savitri Devi, aged about 48 years, wife of Ajay Kumar, resident of Shiv
           Nagar, PO and PS and District Nawada, Bihar
                                                             ... Petitioner(s).
                                    Versus
           1. The State of Jharkhand
           2.The Special Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare
           Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO Dhurwa, PS
           Dhurwa, Ranchi
           3.Dy. Commissioner, Hazaribagh, PO, PS and District Hazaribagh,
           Jharkhand
           4.Block Development Officer, Barkattha, PO and PS Barkattha,
           District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
           5.Circle Officer, Barkattha, PO and PS Barkattha, District Hazaribagh,
           Jharkhand                                        ... Respondents.

           CORAM       :       SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Shivani Bardwaj, Advocate Ms. Akansha Priya, Advocate Ms. Ankita, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, AC to GA-IV .........

09 /11.02.2025: The short point which needs consideration by this Court is whether in absence of any oral evidence in a departmental proceeding charge can be proved against the delinquent employee solely on the basis of some documents.

2. I have gone through the impugned punishment order, charge-sheet and inquiry report. Charge-sheet is at Annexure-6. The petitioner was the Child Development Project Officer. She was sought to be proceeded against in a departmental proceeding. The departmental charge-sheet is on record. As per the said charge-sheet the charge against the petitioner is that

(i) during an inquiry it was found that the attendance of the children were less (ii) further during inquiry it was found that the Aanganbari Centre was closed on several occasions (iii) there is difference between the actual stock and the entries made in the stock register (iv) there was a written complaint by the Sevikas that Rs.1,000/- is being demanded by the Lady Supervisors which suggests that the petitioner has lost control and the same is being done under her supervision.

3. From the charge-sheet, I find that there is no whisper of any oral evidence which is sought to be adduced by the department. From the inquiry report, I find that the charges has been proved on the basis of some documents, those documents i.e. internal inquiry report was also not proved by any oral evidence.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Another" reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301 has held that the preliminary inquiry report cannot form the basis of punishment in a departmental proceeding. The relevant paragraph is necessary to quote:

"52.2. The enquiry officer, the High Court on administrative side as well as on judicial side, committed a grave error in placing reliance on the statement of the complainant as well as of Shri C.B. Gajjar, Advocate, recorded in a preliminary enquiry. The preliminary enquiry and its report loses significance/importance, once the regular enquiry is initiated by issuing charge- sheet to the delinquent. Thus, it was all in violation of the principles of natural justice."

5. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others" reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 has held that even a document in a departmental proceeding has to be proved by some oral evidence. Without oral evidence a document cannot be said to be proved in the departmental proceeding also.

6. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another" reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 has held that it is necessary to prove documentary evidence through oral evidence in disciplinary proceedings.

7. In the instant case, I find that no oral evidence has been adduced to prove the document and further on the basis of a preliminary inquiry report, some charges have been established to be proved.

8. It is the department who has to adduce evidence to prove the guilt of the employee, the employee is not to establish and prove his innocence.

9. Taking into consideration the fact of this case and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find that the procedure adopted by the respondents is illegal and not in accordance with law. Thus, the order of punishment dated 19.10.2013 is set-aside.

10. This writ petition stands allowed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Tanuj/

AFR