Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Mr. Man Mohan Prasad on 26 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No.144 of 2020
-----
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
PO, PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO, PS-
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
4. The Deputy Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
PO, PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
5. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh
....... ... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Mr. Man Mohan Prasad, son of late Muneshwar Prasad, Resident of
Flat No.301, Jacson Plaza Apartment, Lalpur, PO & PS-Lalpur,
District-Ranchi ... ... Writ Petitioner/Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant-State: Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate
------
C.A.V on 16.06.2025 Pronounced on 26/06/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is
directed against the order dated 28.11.2019 passed in W.P(S) No.181 of
2016 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed by the
learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder the impugned order dated
13.05.2015 contained in Memo No.4280 (Annexure-25 to the writ
petition) and Resolution dated 20.12.2012 contained in Memo No.13920
(Annexure-14 to the writ petition) are quashed and set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ
petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
(i) In the year, 2008 the petitioner (respondent herein) was posted
as B.D.O, Churchu and in the same year one Tapas Soren has
committed self immolation at Charhi Chowk and after that
incident, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh vide order dated
02.07.2008 has directed Additional Collector, Land H.B,
Hazaribagh, to conduct an enquiry and submit the report within
a week. However, on the next day i.e. on 03.07.2008 vide letter
No.01-Camp., the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh wrote a
letter to the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand for taking administrative action against the petitioner
with recommendation for putting him under suspension.
(ii) Pursuant thereto, the matter was discussed among the senior
officials of the personnel department and after obtaining consent
from Hon'ble the Chief Minister, suspension order vide Memo
No. 4040 dated 03.07.2008 was issued under pen and signature
of the Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha with regard to incidence of self
immolation of one Tapas Soren ignoring the fact that on
02.07.2008, a direction was issued to Addl. Collector by the same
Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry and to submit the
report within one week and on 03.07.2008, there was no report
of Addl. Collector, which was submitted before the Deputy
Commissioner.
(iii) It is further the case of the petitioner that on 05.07.2008, vide
Letter No. 7 Bhu.Ha., the Addl. Collector, after enquiry
submitted a detailed enquiry report to Deputy Commissioner
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
wherein, petitioner was fully discharged from the allegation
leveled against him. Further, the matter was enquired by the
Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi and in the said
enquiry also, the petitioner was discharged from the charges
leveled against him, which is evident from the report dated
30.10.2008.
(iv) Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner Hazaribagh vide order
dated 08.07.2008, has appointed five Administrative Officers for
conducting physical verification of the Well which were being
constructed in Churchu Block ignoring the fact that all the
Officers were not the Technical officer. Thereafter, they
submitted physical verification report to Deputy Commissioner
and after being dissatisfied with the work, the Deputy
Commissioner. Hazaribagh prepared Prapatra 'K' and forwarded
to the State Government vide Memo No. 27.
(v) It is further case of the petitioner that after the confirmation of
the Prapatra 'K', vide Resolution dated 28.04.2009, the Joint
Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
Department, issued notification for conducting Departmental
Proceeding against the petitioner. The Commissioner, North
Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh was appointed as the
Conducting Officer and on 03.08.2010, the petitioner submitted
his written statement/reply to him.
(vi) Subsequently, vide order dated 09.09.2010 contained in Memo
No. 5434 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, the suspension of the
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
petitioner was vacated. On 07.05.2012, the Conducting Officer
submitted the enquiry report to the Principal Secretary,
Personnel, Administrative. Reforms and Rajbhasha Department,
wherein petitioner has been exonerated from the charges leveled
against him.
(vii) Subsequently, on 12.07.2012, vide Memo No. 8119 second show
cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto,
petitioner submitted his reply to the Department on 06.08.2012
and 18.08.2012. Thereafter, after being unsatisfied to the reply
of the petitioner, Deputy Secretary, Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha Department vide Resolution dated
20.12.2012 contained in Memo No. 13920 awarded the
punishment of withholding of three increments without
cumulative effect without considering the reply of the petitioner.
(viii) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before
His Excellency, the then Governor of Jharkhand. Thereafter, the
Deputy Secretary directed the Deputy Commissioner to conduct
an enquiry and submit his report. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy
Commissioner after enquiry submitted his report and after being
satisfied by the said report, the Principal Secretary, Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand observed that the petitioner has not been found guilty
of the charges leveled against him and therefore, his case may be
considered and punishment awarded to him may be set aside and
the Appeal preferred by the petitioner be allowed and as such,
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
with this observation, file was forwarded for the consent of
Hon'ble the Chief Minister.
(ix) Thereafter, the Chief Minister, after certain queries to the
Department, has given his consent and therefore, the appeal
preferred by the petitioner was allowed and punishment imposed
upon the petitioner has been set aside vide Extract of File dated
02.05.2014.
(x) It is further case of the petitioner that surprisingly his file was
reopened for review of the order of Hon'ble the Chief Minister
dated 02.05.2014, wherein the petitioner has been discharged
from all the charges and it was sent to Hon'ble the Chief Minister
for review with forwarding note of the Principal Secretary.
Pursuant thereto, vide Noting dated 30.07.2014, Hon'ble the
Chief Minister returned back the file to the Personnel
Department with observation that 'aforesaid proposal is against
the earlier decision of the Government and for this whether a new
fact has come.
(xi) Again, the Deputy Secretary, forwarded the file for review the
earlier order of Hon'ble the Chief Minister through the Principal
Secretary. Pursuant thereto, the Hon'ble Chief Minister has
observed in the said file that whether frequent change in the
punishment order would not have adverse effect on
administrative discipline and with this note, the file has been sent
back vide noting dated 31.01.2015.
(xii) However, on the basis of the same fact on which the petitioner
has been exonerated earlier and by manipulating the same facts
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
as mentioned in Papatra 'K', the matter was placed before
Hon'ble the Chief Minister and on 09.04.2015, Hon'ble the Chief
Minister approved the same. On the basis of above mentioned
notings, the petitioner has been awarded with the punishment of
withholding of three increments without cumulative effect and
same has been notified through Resolution dated 13.05.2015
contained in Memo No. 4280 issued by Deputy Secretary,
Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department.
3. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner after being punished by
inflicting punishment of withholding of three increments without
cumulative effect passed afresh on the basis of the order passed by the
appellate authority has challenged the said punishment order by filing a
writ petition being W.P.(S) No.181 of 2016.
4. The learned Single Judge on the ground that the procedure as laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of "Punjab National Bank
v. Kunj Behari Misra", (1998) 7 SCC 84 has not been followed to the
effect that even though the inquiry officer has not found the petitioner
guilty and without providing an opportunity to defend himself on the point
of difference of opinion, the order of punishment has been passed while
allowing the writ petition has quashed and set aside the impugned order by
holding that the petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits.
5. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the
State.
Submission on behalf of the appellant-State:
6. In support of his contention, the learned State counsel has taken
the following grounds:
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
(i) The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment has
not appreciated the fact that the entire opportunity put forth in
defence has been provided to the writ petitioner but the aforesaid
aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the
learned Single Judge.
(ii) For that the order impugned dated 28.11.2019 is absolutely
arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.
(iii) For that the impugned order dated 28.11.2019 is passed, ignoring
the documents available records and thus, the same is based upon
non consideration of facts available on record. In this on regard it
is to specify that the Hon'ble single judge has hold that while giving
second show cause to the delinquent, "the disciplinary authority
have not assigned any reason for differing with the enquiry report."
This finding of the learned Single Judge is absolutely erroneous and
beyond the records.
(iv) For that the impugned order dated 28.11.2019 is based upon non
appreciation of judicial pronouncement, as the learned Single Judge
did not appreciate the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of M/S Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr. Vs. D.D.A.,
reported in (2009) 1 SCC 180, that notings in a departmental file
do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order.
(v) For that the learned Single Judge has erroneously given a
conclusive finding that the writ petitioner was punished twice, as
there is only one order of punishment issued and communicated in
the instant matter. Hence, this finding of the learned Single Judge
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
is contrary to the records. That there is only one order of
punishment issued and communicated in the instant matter.
(vi) For that the learned writ Court has failed to appreciate that the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of A.P. Vs. Chitra
Venkata Rao" reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 has held that "The
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a
supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as Appellate
Court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or Tribunal
as a result of the appreciation of evidence are not reopened
questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent
on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error
of fact, however, grave it may appear to be."
(vii) Similarly, in case of "B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India" (1995)
6 SCC 749 it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "the
power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual
receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which
the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court.
The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The
Court/Tribunal in its power of review does not act as appellate
authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own
independent findings on the evidence."
(viii) For that the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge has
a different ratio from the facts of this case and as such not
applicable in the present set of facts whereas, the judgment relied
upon by the respondent State in the original writ petition is squarely
covered and applicable in the present case.
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
(ix) For that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based
upon fallacious interpretation of judicial pronouncements of
the Hon'ble Apex Court which is not at all applicable in the present
set of facts.
(x) For that if the impugned order of the Hon'ble Single Judge be
affirmed, the appellant/respondent State would suffer irreparable
loss to the State exchequer and unwarranted litigations.
(xi) For that the impugned order is, therefore, fit to be set aside for such
other and further grounds which shall be raised at the time of
hearing of this appeal.
7. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid ground, initially,
has contested the case by showing the error in the impugned order.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent:
8. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent to defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds:
(i) The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there
is no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Kunj Behari
Mishra" (supra) has not been followed.
(ii) It has been contended that while punishing the petitioner the
principal of natural justice has been violated by the authority
concerned.
(iii) If the charge framed against the writ petitioner has not been
found to be proved then there is no question of inflicting
punishment of withholding three increments and not only that
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
there is no occasion for the authority concerned to issue second
show cause notice.
9. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has
submitted that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the
aforesaid aspect of the matter as also by putting reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Kunj Behari Mishra" (supra)
has passed the judgment and, thus, the same cannot be said to suffer from
an error.
Analysis:
10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
gone through the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge as also the
order passed by the adjudicatory authority dated 13.05.2015.
11. The admitted fact herein is that the writ petitioner while working
as Block Development Officer has been charge-sheeted by the disciplinary
authority by inflicting the following irregularity committed by him:
(क) श्री प्रसाद द्वारा अपने पदस्थापन के दौरान योजनाओं के ननरीक्षण एवं पययवेक्षण सही ढं ग से नहीं
नकया जाता था नजसके कारण प्रखण्ड के नवनिन्न योजनाओं का कायाय न्वयन एवं गुणवत्ता सही ढं ग
से संचानित नहीं हो रहीं थी। चुरचू प्रखण्ड के अन्तगयत नरे गा के तहत् नसंचाई कूप ननर्ाय ण योजनाओं
की जां च र्ें ननम्न त्रुनियााँ पाई गई :-
(1) नसंचाई कूप ननर्ाय ण योजनाओं र्ें पंचायत इन्दा, हे सािौंग, हुआग, जरबा, हेत्सागढा
र्ें कूप ननर्ाय ण की योजनाओं र्ें कायय से अनिक र्ापी नकया गया, कार् के अनुरूप
कायय नहीं पाया गया एवं काययपूणय होने पर िी र्ापी नहीं िी गई।
(2) 20° (निि) व्यास कूप ननर्ाय ण का जोडाई कायय नर्ट्टी से नकया पाया गया जबनक
प्राक्किन के अनुत्तार कूप का जोडाई कायय प्रारम्भ र्ें 10' (निि) नर्ट्टी से एवं शेष
सीर्ेंि से कराये जाने का प्राविान है । चुरचू प्रखण्ड र्ें किस्टर कूप ननर्ाय ण र्ें
र्हज खाना-पूरी की गई और पैसे िार्ुक जो अनुसूनचत जानत एवं अनुसूनचत
जनजानत के नहीं हैं , उन्हें िी किस्टर कूप नदया गया। कूप का ननर्ाय ण किस्टर र्ें
न होकर पूरे गााँ व के नवनिन्न स्थानों र्ें नकया गया। कूप का ननर्ाय ण खेत र्ें न करके
घर के आाँ गन र्ें नकया गया नजसके की नसंचाई का कार् नहीं निया जा सकता।
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
(ख) श्री प्रसाद द्वारा अपने अनिनस्थ कनर्ययों यथा पंचायत सेवक एवं कनीय
अनियंता के र्ाध्यर् से नरे गा के नवनिन्न िािुकों से कर्ीशन के रूप र्ें नाजायज
रानश वसूिा जाता था।
(ग) श्री प्रसाद की िापरवाही एवं कत्तयव्यहीनता के कारण तापस सोरे न के ईिाज
एवं र्ृत्यु के उपरान्त र्ुआवजा आनद का िुगतान करना पडा नजसके कारण
सरकारी रानश का व्यय हुआ।"
12. The said memorandum of charge was based upon the fact
findings report. The inquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner has
appeared before the inquiry officer and put forth his defence.
13. After inquiry, the inquiry officer has not found the charges
proved against the writ petitioner which would be evident from the report
of the inquiry officer, which reproduce as under:
आदे श की आदे श और पदानिकारी का हस्ताक्षर आदे श पर
क्र० स० और की कारय वाई
तारीख के बारे र्ें
निप्पणी
तारीख
सनहत
यह नविागीय कारय वाई संकल्प सं० 2776 नद 28.04.09 के आिोक
र्ें प्रारम्भ की गई थी और इसर्ें संचािन पदानिकारी के स्थानान्तरण
होने के पश्चात कानर्यक प्रशासननक सुिार तथा राजिाषा नविाग के
पत्र सं० 5249 नदनां क 2.09.2011 र्ें आं नशक संशोिन करते हुए र्ुझे
संचािन पदानिकारी ननयुक्त नकया गया। तत्काि यह सां स्थस्थत नवत्त
नविाग से स्थानान्तररत होकर 12.04.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ है । तथा
इसर्ें प्रस्तोता पदानिकारी श्री नकस्टो कुर्ार बेसरा, प्रखण्ड नवकास
पदानिकारी को नानर्त नकया गया है । आज ननिायररत सर्य पर
आरोनपत पदानिकारी श्री र्नर्ोहन प्रसाद तथा प्रस्तोता पदानिकारी
श्री नकस्टो कुर्ार बेसरा दोनों उपस्थस्थत है ।
आरोनपत पदानिकारी द्वारा सर्नपयत निस्थखत बचाव अनियान एवं
साक्ष्य द्वारा प्रस्तोत पदानिकारी अंचि अनिकारी किकर्सां डी
हजारीबाग श्री र्नीष कुर्ार द्वारा बताये गये आरोपों की जााँ च की
गई।
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
अनििेख सां स्थस्थक एवं नवत्त काययक्रर् के कायाय िय से सुनवाई हे तु
िेजा गया, तथा प्रस्तोत पदानिकारी श्री नकस्टो कुर्ार बेसरा प्रखण्ड
नवकास पदानिकारी, चुरचू हजारीबाग पूवय से प्रस्तुत आदे श की प्रनत
से आरोपों एवं साक्ष्यों से के संबंि र्ें सहनर्त जतायी ।
आरोप संख्या क :-
आरोनपत पदानिकारी के पदस्थापन काि र्ें प्रखण्ड के
नवनिन्न पंचायतों र्ें नरे गा के अन्तगयत जो कुप का ननर्ाय ण हो
रहा था। वह र्ागयननदे नशका के अनुरूप नहीं है और न ही
र्ापी अद्यतन इसकी जॉच कराई गई, नजसर्ें त्रुनि पाई गई
। इस संबंि र्ें आरोनपत पदनिकारी द्वारा बताया गया नक
नजस कनर्नि से जााँ च कराई गई उसर्ें तकनीकी
पदानिकारी नहीं थे । कूप ननर्ाय ण का प्रशासननक स्वीकृनत
उपायुक्त हजारीबाग द्वारा अक्टू बर 2007 र्ें नदया गया।
तदनुसार िािुक से एग्रीर्ेण्ट कराकर कायय प्रारं ि नकया
गया । तत्कािीन उपायुक्त एवं नवकास आयुक्त द्वारा भ्रर्ण
कर ननर्ाय ण हो रहे कूपों का ननरीक्षण नकया गया, नजसर्ें
नकसी प्रकार की त्रुनि नहीं पाई गई। इसर्ें र्ेरा कोई दोष
नहीं है । घनित घिना के बाद जब अपर सर्ाहताय िू
हदबंदी, हजारीबाग एवं िारत सरकार के ग्रार्ीण नवकास
र्ंत्रािय से िी इसकी जााँ च कराई गई। उक्त दोनों जॉच
पदानिकारी द्वारा ननर्ाय ण हो रहे कूपों से कािी संतुष्ट हुए
नकसी प्रकार की त्रुनि नही पायी गई। इस प्रकार आरोप
संख्या "क" संदेह से परे है । (जााँ च प्रनतवेदन की छायाप्रनत
संिग्न) पत्रां क 716 05/07/08 तथा श्री नागेश्वर शर्ाय
एन०एि० एर्० का प्रनतवेदन नदनां क 30.06.2008
आरोप संख्या - ख एवं ग :-
ये दोनों आरोप र्ुख्य प्रकरण से ही संबंनित है । इस आरोप
के संबंि र्ें आरोनपत पदानिकारी द्वारा बताया गया नक
जुिाई 2006 र्ें प्रखड नवकास पदानिकारी चुरचू का प्रिार
ग्रहण नकया तथा र्ेरा काययकाि कािी संतोषजनक रहा,
नकन्तु दु िाय ग्यवश नदनां क 02.07.2008 को राष्टरीय ग्रार्ीण
रोजगार गारण्टी के िािुक श्री तापस सोरे न, ग्रार् सडवाहा,
िोिा बीराखाप, पंचायत-चरही द्वारा आत्मदाह का प्रयास
नकया गया। घिना की सूचना नर्िते ही उपायुक्त
हजारीबाग को सूनचत करते हुए बेहतर ईिाज के निए
नदल्ली िेजा गया, जहााँ ईिाज के कर् र्ें नदनां क
08.07.2008 को उनकी र्ृत्यु हो गई ।
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
उपिब्ध अनििेखों के सर्ीक्षोपरान्त पाया गया नक राष्टरीय
ग्रार्ीण रोजगार गारण्टी के िािुक श्री सोरे न को 20 िीि
व्यास के कूप ननर्ाय ण की स्वीकृनत दी गई थी, नजसकी
अनििेख संख्या 06/07-08 है और इसकी प्राक्कनित रानश
163200.00 (एक िाख नतरसठ हजार दो सौ) रू० है । इस
योजना के कायाय न्वयन हे तु स्वीगीय सोरे न को नवनिन्न
नतनथयों र्ें अनग्रर् के रूप र्ें 75000/ 15000 / एवं 50000 /
कुि 72500/ रू0 चेक द्वारा िुगतान नकया गया, जो स्व०
सोरे न के युनाईिे ड बैंक ऑि इस्थण्डया, चरही के खाता
संख्या 6149 र्ें जर्ा हुआ, नजसर्ें से स्व० सोरे न द्वारा कुि
37000 / रू० की ननकासी की गई जााँ च के कर् र्ें सही पाया
गया । परन्तु स्व० सोरे न के अद्यतन पासबुक से प्राप्त नकये
गये स्टे िर्ेण्ट र्ें निन्नता पाई गई। (छायाप्रनत संिग्न) इस
संबंि र्ें शाखा प्रबंिक से पूछताछ की गई तो बताया गया
नक कम्प्यूिर के गित बिन दब जाने के कारण दू सरे खाते
की प्रनवनष्ट स्व० सोरे न के खाते र्ें दजय हो गया। बाद र्ें
प्रबंिक द्वारा स्व० सोरे न के खाते र्ें दजय अनिक रानश की
प्रनवनष्ट संबंनित खाते र्ें की गयी। जब स्व० सोरे न को इस
बात की जानकारी हुई तो उन्होनें कहा र्ेरा पैसा गित
तरीके से ननकाि निया गया, इस कारण से िी स्व० सोरे न
कािी परे शान थे। जााँ च पदानिकारी द्वारा कायय स्थि पर
जाकर जााँ च की गई। वहााँ अनििेख र्ें संिाररत र्स्टर रौि
जो कुि 15206/ रू0 के संबंि र्ें र्नहिा श्रनर्क दशर्ी
िु बू पनत तापस सोरे न, सुर्ो सोरे न नपता जिा र्ां झी बगैरह
से सत्यापन नकया गया। इस सं बंि र्ें दशर्ी िु डू ने बताया
नक र्स्टर रौि पर गित हस्ताक्षर कर र्ेरा पैसा ननकाि
निया गया है क्योनक र्ैं अगूठा का ननशान िगाती हाँ , नकन्तु
डाकघर र्ें पैसे की प्रनवनष्ट सही पाई गई। स्थि जाच के
कर् र्ें ग्रार्ीणों ने पंचायत सेवक श्री वृजनकशोर र्हतो एवं
रोजगार सेवक पर कर्ीशन के रूप र्ें रू० िोने की बात
कही गई ।
जॉच पदानिकारी द्वारा नदनांक 03.07.2008 को ररम्स
जाकर ईिाज के निए एकरारनार्ा के पूवय पैसा निया गया
और और बाद र्ें बी०डी०ओ० डी०सी० के नार् पर 20
प्रनतशत कर्ीशन की र्ां ग की गई पंचायत सेवक ने एक
बार र्ें 2500 / दू सरी बार र्ें 5000 / और 4000 / तथा अगिी
बार 200 / अथाय त कुि 11700 / रू० निये। इस प्रकरण की
जॉच ग्रार्ीण नवकास र्ंत्रािय िारत सरकार से िी करायी
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
गई, नजसर्ें आरोनपत पदानिकारी को दोषर्ुक्त पाया गया
। पृष्ठ- 76/प दृष्टव्य
आरोनपत पदानिकारी द्वारा इस संबंि र्ें बताया गया नक
र्ार्िे की गंिीरता को दे खते हुए उच्चानिकाररयों द्वारा
आनन-िानन र्ें र्ार्िे का बगैर जाच कराए हुए तथा बगैर
स्पष्टीकरण पूछे हुए सारा दोष र्ेरे उपर िगाते हुए एक ही
नदन नदनां क 03.07.2008 को र्ुझे ननिंनबत करते हुए
नविागीय काययवाही चिाने का आदे श नदया गया, जो
न्यायसंगत नही है । उपायुक्त हजारीबाग द्वारा नदनां क
02.07.2008 को अपर सर्ाहताय िू हदबंदी हजारीबाग श्री
बिदे व राज को घिना का नवस्तृत जााँ च का आदे श नदया
गया। जॉचोपरान्त अपर सर्ाहताय हजारीबाग द्वारा नदनां क
05.07.2008 को जााँ च प्रनतवेदन सिनपयत नकया गया, नजसर्ें
आरोप र्ुक्त पाया गया । (जॉच प्रनतवेदन संिग्न)
अतः इस प्रकार सर्ीक्षोपरान्त पाया गया नक पंचायत
सेवक, कनीय अनियंता एवं रोजगार सेवक द्वारा बार-बार
कर्ीशन की र्ां ग करने तथा बैंक द्वारा गित प्रनवनष्ट के
वजह से स्व० तापस सोरे न कािी परे शान हो गये तथा
नदनां क 02.07.2008 को आत्मदाह का प्रयास नकये और
ईिाज के कर् र्ें उनकी र्ृत्यु हो गई। आरोनपत
पदानिकारी श्री र्नर्ोहन प्रसाद, तत्कािीन प्रखण्ड
नवकास पदानिकारी, चुरचू के नवरूद्ध न तो जााँ च के कर्
र्ें दोषी पाया गया और न ही ग्रार्ीण द्वारा सीिे तौर पर
पैसा िेने की बात कही गई और नहीं स्व० सोरे न के बयान
र्ें यह तथ्य सार्ने आया । (बयान की छायाप्रनत) पृष्ट - 130
/ प द्रष्टव्य
आरोनपत पदानिकारी द्वारा निस्थखत रूप से बचाव पक्ष रखने
तथा दोनो पक्षों के सुनने के बाद यह पता हाँ नक श्री र्नर्ोहन
प्रसाद, कोनि कर्ां क 529/07 झा०प्र०से० पर कोई सीिा
आरोप पररिनक्षत नही होता है । नकन्तु प्रखंड के
पदानिकारी होने के नाते के कारण जो िी त्रुनियों बताई गई
इस पर पययवेनक्षय उत्तरदानयत्व इनका होना चानहए, नकन्तु
इनके द्वारा जो िी गिती हुई उसके निए नौ र्ाह होिवार
जेि र्ें रहना पडा वह सजा नकसी िी नविागीय कारय वाई र्ें
होने वािे सजा से बहुत कडी सजा है । और अिी यह
र्ार्िा न्यायािय र्ें नवचारािीन है ।
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
अतः इनके निस्थखत बचाव व्यान पर सहानुिूनतपूवयक नवचार
नकया गया। इनका कहना है नक जो िी पययवेक्षकीय
उत्तरदानयत्व इनके अंदर आता है उसके आिार पर
उपरोक्त सजा पयाय प्त से अनिक है । जैसे ये िुगत चुके है
अतः आगे कोई दण्डात्मक काययवाही करना उनचत नही
होगा ।
र्ुझे िी यही उनचत प्रतीत होता है नक इन्हें जेि र्ें नबताई
गई अवनि के ननिम्बन के अनतररक्त अन्य कोई सजा की
संस्तुनत नही की जा सकती है नकन्तु यह इनके नवरुद्ध, चि
रहे आपरानिक र्ुकदर्ें के निये कोई आिार नहीं होगा ।
ह0/-
डा. ए. के. पाण्डे य,
(संचािन पदानिकारी),
राज्यपाि के प्रिान सनचव,
झारखण्ड, रााँ ची ।
14. It is evident from the factual aspect that the second show cause
notice has been issued by giving the cause to explain as to why his three
annual increments without cumulative effect be not withheld.
15. The writ petitioner has given his reply pointing out the fact that
the inquiry officer since has not found the charges proved against him and,
as such, based upon the said report he cannot be punished. But the
disciplinary authority without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact
has passed the order of punishment by withholding three annual
increments of the petitioner without cumulative effect which is impugned
before the learned Single Judge.
16. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order of
punishment, has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Governor as
provided under the Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal)
Rules, 1965. The Hon'ble Governor has passed an order by reverting the
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
order of punishment withholding three annual increments without
cumulative effect, however, with the approval of the Chief Minister.
17. The facts remain, therefore, that the charge has not been proved
against the writ petitioner as would be evident from the inquiry report.
The law is well-settled as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of "Kunj Behari Misra" (Supra). In that case, it has been
propounded that in a case where the charge has not been proved by the
inquiry officer the authority has to inflict punishment but before inflicting
such punishment the requirement will be to differ with the opinion of the
inquiry report based upon the reason and the opportunity is to be given to
the delinquent employee to make representation on the issue of difference
of opinion with the inquiry report, wherein at paragraph-18 it has been
held as under:
"18. Under Regulation 6, the enquiry proceedings can be conducted
either by an enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority itself.
When the enquiry is conducted by the enquiry officer, his report is
not final or conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand
concluded. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with the
decision of the disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary authority
which can impose the penalty and not the enquiry officer. Where the
disciplinary authority itself holds an enquiry, an opportunity of
hearing has to be granted by him. When the disciplinary authority
differs with the view of the enquiry officer and proposes to come to a
different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of
hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous
that where the charged officers succeed before the enquiry officer,
they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before
that authority differs with the enquiry officer's report and, while
recording a finding of guilt, imposes punishment on the officer. In
our opinion, in any such situation, the charged officer must have an
opportunity to represent before the disciplinary authority before final
findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed. This
is required to be done as a part of the first stage of enquiry as
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
explained in Karunakar case [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S)
1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] ."
18. The admitted fact of the present case is that the disciplinary
authority, while differing with the finding of the enquiry officer, has not
mentioned the reason for differing with the finding of the enquiry officer,
then a question would arise that on what basis the punishment has been
imposed that too without following the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of "Kunj Behari Misra" (Supra).
19. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the
aforesaid fact as would be evident from the finding recorded in the
impugned order, wherein the learned Single Judge has taken into
consideration that the disciplinary authority has not assigned any reasons
for differing with the enquiry report and as such, punishment inflicted
against the petitioner is non est in the eyes of law.
20. Further the learned single Judge has also taken in to
consideration that no man should be put twice in parity for same offence
meaning thereby person, who has been previously acquitted on the same
charge on which he is being prosecuted earlier, he would not be punished
twice.
21. This Court, on consideration of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and on the basis of the admitted fact that inspite of the fact
the inquiry officer has not found the charge proved against the writ
petitioner three annual increments of the writ petitioner without
cumulative effect has been withheld by the disciplinary authority, is of the
view that the learned Single Judge has not erred in passing the order by
quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.05.2015
contained in Memo No.4280 (Annexure-25 to the writ petition) and
2025:JHHC:17091-DB
Resolution dated 20.10.2012 contained in Memo No.13290 (Annexure-
14 to the writ petition).
22. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to
interfere with the order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P(S) No.181 of 2016 and, consequently, the instant appeal
stands dismissed.
23. Accordingly, L.P.A No.144 of 2020 stands dismissed and
disposed of as such.
24. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Sudhir
Dated:26th/06/2025
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
