Jharkhand High Court
Naseem Ali vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4675 of 2015
-----
Naseem Ali, S/o Late Amin Ali ------ Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand
3.Under Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand
4.Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand
------ Respondent(s)
......
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Pratiyush Shoumikya, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V
.........
11 / 24.02.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
2. The short point which falls for consideration before this Court is
whether without any oral evidence and based on internal inquiry
report, a person can be held guilty in a department proceeding and can
be punished or not.
3. From the facts of this case, it is admitted that the petitioner was
an Assistant Engineer. He was proceeded against for making some
wrong estimate in respect of purchase of furniture. There is an
allegation that the contract was awarded at a rate which is more than
the scheduled rate. Further, there is an allegation that the
specifications were not properly spelt out.
4. On the charges levelled against the petitioner, admittedly the
chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer
submitted a report finding the petitioner guilty of the charge and
thereafter, the punishment of stoppage of two increments with
cumulative effect and that of censure was passed against the
petitioner.
5. The entire enquiry proceedings has been brought on record by
the petitioner and the ordersheets of the departmental proceeding are
before me. From the ordersheet, I find that not a single witness has
been examined in this case to prove any document. The petitioner has
been held guilty based on some vouchers, some documents and
internal inquiry report.
6. The law is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others, reported in
(2009) 2 SCC 570 in para 14 held as follows:-
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."
7. Further in para 30 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. v.
Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 the following has
been held:-
"30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant
it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be
conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The
rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice
is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is
to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may
culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from
service."
8. In a recent judgment Satyendra Singh vs The State Of Uttar
Pradesh, reported in 2024 INSC 873. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
taken note of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) and has held that it is necessary to
examine witness even to prove the documents.
9. So far as reliance on the internal enquiry report is concerned, the
law is also settled. In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat
and Another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301, it has been held that
internal inquiry report cannot form the basis to punish a delinquent in
the departmental proceeding. The same judgment has also been relied
upon in Satyendra Singh (Supra).
10. Considering the well settled proposition of law, admittedly
when no witness has been examined in the case, the petitioner cannot
be held guilty only on the basis of the internal inquiry report.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. The impugned
order of punishment dated 20.11.2014 is set aside.
11. Petitioner is entitled to get all the consequential benefits.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
R.S.
AFR
