Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Arun Kumar Singh on 5 June, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                  2025:JHHC:14494-DB



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                     L.P.A. No. 190 of 2023
                                ---
      1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal
      Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate
      Change, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
      2. The Joint Secretary to the Government, Department of
      Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of
      Jharkhand, Ranchi
      3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of
      Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of
      Jharkhand, Ranchi
                                          ...    ...     Appellants
                                   Versus

      Arun Kumar Singh, son of Late Parmeshwar Dayal Singh,
      residing at Flat No. 304, Block - C, Ganpat Palace, near Bahu
      Bazar, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Chutia, Ranchi
                                                .... ...      Respondent
      CORAM:           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                                 ---
      For the Appellants          : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr.S.C.-II
                                     Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-II
      For the Respondent          : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                 ---

Reserved on 07.05.2025                 Pronounced on 05.06.2025
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :

The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf

of the appellants for condonation of delay of 155 days in filing the

present appeal.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and being

satisfied with the reasons stated in the present interlocutory

application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby

condoned.

3. I.A No. 3812 of 2023 is accordingly disposed of.

4. The present appeal is directed against the judgment/order

2025:JHHC:14494-DB

dated 27.09.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5205 of 2018 whereby the

writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent has been

allowed on the ground of non- examination of witnesses and

not proving the documents, thereby violating the principles

of natural justice. Consequently, the enquiry report as well as

the order of punishment dated 05.04.2016 as contained in Memo

no. 1776 and the appellate order as contained in letter no.

2504 dated 14.06.2018 have been quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while the

respondent was posted as Forest Range Officer, Madanpur Range,

Valmiki Tiger Project Division - 2, Bettiah (Bihar), certain acts of

serious financial irregularities involving defalcation of government

money were detected against him and he was put under suspension

vide notification dated 12.06.2002 issued by the Government of

Bihar. A memo of charge was issued against the respondent on

01.10.2002 for having committed financial irregularities and

defalcation of government money as well as manipulation of record.

The respondent submitted his reply on 31.10.2002 as well as

supplementary reply on 31.07.2003 denying the charges levelled

against him and vide his letter dated 13.09.2003, he also demanded

certain documents/records relating to the charges, but those were

not supplied to him.

6. The enquiry officer was appointed by the Government of Bihar

and enquiry was conducted on different dates. The enquiry officer

submitted his report dated 10.08.2004 holding the charges against

the respondent as proved and he was issued second show cause

notice on 16.04.2005.

2025:JHHC:14494-DB

7. In the meantime, the respondent was allocated Jharkhand

Cadre and he joined his services in Jharkhand. Subsequently, his

suspension was revoked vide order dated 08.02.2005 and he was

posted in Latehar. The respondent submitted his reply to the second

show cause notice on 25.05.2005 pointing out the defects in the

enquiry report. He further pointed out that similarly situated Forest

Range Officer, Manguraha Forest Range, Valmiki Tiger Project,

Champaran Division-1, Bettiah (Bihar) and other forest guards were

also proceeded departmentally but they were exonerated by the

appellate authority.

8. The enquiry officer was requested to provide his opinion on the

reply to the second show cause notice filed by the respondent which

was received through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,

Bihar. Thereafter, the order of punishment was issued against him

vide memo no. 1766 dated 05.04.2016 whereby a sum of Rs.

1,61,050/- was directed to be recovered from his salary and a

punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect

was imposed.

9. The respondent thereafter preferred appeal before the

Governor, Jharkhand on 22.08.2016 which was rejected and

communicated to him under the signature of Joint Secretary,

Government of Jharkhand vide letter no. 2504 dated 14.06.2018.

10. The respondent thereafter filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.

5205 of 2018 seeking quashing of the order of punishment dated

05.04.2016 and appellate order dated 14.06.2018. The said writ

petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground

of violation of the principles of natural justice due to non-

2025:JHHC:14494-DB

examination of witnesses to prove the documents produced by the

presenting officer before the enquiry officer.

11. It is further contended that the order of punishment was

passed after due compliance of the principles of natural justice and

the punishment awarded to the respondent was proportionate to the

gravity of charges.

12. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the learned

Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the order of punishment

was passed against the respondent after due consideration of his

reply. The learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that

the order of punishment was passed against the respondent after

affording him due opportunity during the enquiry to produce

documents/witnesses in his defence.

13. It is further argued that the appeal of the respondent was also

rejected after duly considering and carefully examining the grounds

taken in appeal. Since the entire case was based on documentary

evidence, the documents available on record during the enquiry

proceeding were themselves sufficient to prove the charge against

the respondent.

14. It is also submitted that the documents produced by the

presenting officer before the enquiry officer were supplied to the

respondent who participated in the entire enquiry proceeding and as

such he cannot contend that the impugned order of punishment was

passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

15. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submits

that an enquiry officer is not supposed to be a representative of the

department and his function is to see as to whether there is

2025:JHHC:14494-DB

unrebutted evidence to prove the charge against the delinquent

employee.

16. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge has rightly

allowed the writ petition since the documents on the basis of which

the enquiry officer had submitted his enquiry report and

consequently the impugned order of punishment was passed against

the respondent, were not proved by examining the witnesses.

17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

materials available on record.

18. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the

appellants is that the learned Single Judge is not right in interfering

with the order of punishment as the same was passed against the

respondent after due observance of the principles of natural justice

particularly affording proper opportunity to controvert the allegation

levelled against him.

19. We have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge

wherein by putting reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court rendered in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab

National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and

The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Saroj Kumar

Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772, it has been observed that if

the case of the department is based on certain documents, those

documents also need to be proved. The relevant witnesses are

required to be produced by the department and be examined to

prove the documents relied by it. A document which is not proved by

oral evidence cannot be taken into consideration to arrive at a

conclusion that the charge is proved.

2025:JHHC:14494-DB

20. We have gone through the judgment of Roop Singh Negi

(supra). Fact in the said case was that the appellant was a Peon in

the respondent Bank and he along with others was involved in theft

of bank-draft book. An FIR was lodged for the alleged occurrence

and after investigation by the police, the appellant and others were

prosecuted. The appellant was, however, acquitted by the criminal

court. Departmental proceeding was also conducted against the

appellant wherein charge against him was held to be proved on the

basis of FIR, few other documents and his alleged confession before

the police. These documents were, however, not proved in course of

departmental enquiry by examining and cross-examining the

witnesses. The contentions raised by the appellant were also not

considered by the departmental authorities, yet he was dismissed

from service. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ

petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the

appellant. Paragraph-14 of the said judgment reads as under: -

"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."

2025:JHHC:14494-DB

21. We have also perused the judgment of Saroj Kumar Sinha

(supra), paragraph-28 of which reads thus:

"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents."

22. It is no more res-integra that the enquiry officer performs a

quasi-judicial function and he has a duty to arrive at a finding taking

into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties.

Mere production of document before the enquiry officer by the

employer is not sufficient to prove the allegation levelled against an

employee, rather the said document is required to be proved by

examining the witnesses and the role of the enquiry officer is to see

as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold the

charges as proved.

23. In the present case, the contention of the appellants is that the

relevant documents were supplied to the respondent and he had

taken part in the entire enquiry proceeding and as such, he cannot