Awadhesh Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2840 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Awadhesh Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 24 February, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        W.P.(S) No. 669 of 2016
                                    -----
    Awadhesh Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Aklu Singh          ------ Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
    1.The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-
    Dhurwa, Ranchi
    2.Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand
    3.Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand
    4.Shri Shekhar Kumar Verma, Jharkhand Administrative Service, Departmental
    Enquiry Officer, T.A. Division Building, near Gol Chakkar, HEC Township, Dhurwa,
    Ranchi                                             ------ Respondent(s)
                                   ......
                CORAM        :     SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate For the Resp-State : Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. S.C.-II .........

10 / 24.02.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The only question which needs to be decided in this writ petition is whether without examining any oral witness in support of the document and based on some internal inquiry report, petitioner can be punished or not.

3. It is not necessary to go into details of the facts, as the fact that no witness has been examined in the inquiry proceeding is admitted by the State. The punishment of the petitioner is based on some documents, but those documents were not exhibited by any other witness. Further, some internal inquiry report was also taken into consideration by the Officers without proving the same.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2024 INSC 873 relying upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 has held that to prove a document it is necessary to examine oral witness in the departmental proceeding also. In absence of oral evidence, the documents cannot be proved and cannot be considered. Further, in the case of Satyendra Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2024 INSC 873 relying upon the case of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that preliminary enquiry report cannot be a basis to punish a person in a departmental proceeding. The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid two judgments. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed.

5. Thus, the impugned order dated 30.10.2015 is hereby set aside.

6. Petitioner is entitled to get all the consequential benefits. The money which has been recovered from the pension of the petitioner should be refunded to him within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S.