Surendra Chaurasia vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 275 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Surendra Chaurasia vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 8 May, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                                     2025:JHHC:14310


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       W.P.(S) No. 5810 of 2014
                               -------

Surendra Chaurasia, son of late Chhote Lal Modi, residing at Court Road, PO, PS & District-Deoghar ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, having office at Nepal House, PO & PS-Doranda, Town and District-Ranchi

2. The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, having office at F.F.P Building, Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi

3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Rural Works, having office at F.F.P. Building, Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi

4. The Accountant General (A & N), Jharkhand, having office at Doranda, PO & PS-Doranda, Town and District-Ranchi ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. R. K. Roy, AC to GA-III

-------

Order No.12 /Dated: 8th May 2025

In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

"(i) To quash/set aside the decision contained in Notification no. 3166 dated 9.12.2013 issued under the pen and signature of respondent no.3, whereby and whereunder, 15% pension of the petitioner has been withheld in garb of the provisions enshrined in Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules.

(ii) To quash/set aside the appellate order contained in resolution dated 26.8.2014, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been rejected.

(iii) To also direct the respondents to pay the full salary minus what has been paid as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension running from 12.7.2011 to 31.1.2013.

(iv) To also direct the respondents to pay full pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner for which he is entitled to on his retirement with effect from 31.1.2013.

(v) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner."

2. The brief fact of the case as per the pleadings is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer on 07.02.1979 and after bifurcation of State, his services was allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand where he was promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer in the month of June 2001 and was subsequently promoted to the rank of Superintending Engineer in the month of July 2010.

2025:JHHC:14310

While the petitioner was serving as Superintending Engineer he was put under suspension by Notification No. 4361 dated 12.07.2011 and a departmental proceeding was initiated by serving him a charge memo and in the departmental proceeding; out of five charges, the petitioner has been exonerated from charge nos.2, 3 and 5 and charge nos.1 and 4 were proved by the Inquiry officer. Thereafter, second show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner to which he dully replied; however, after his retirement punishment order has been passed.

3. The fact further reveals that while the petitioner was working as Superintending Engineer, Rural Development Department Special Division Gumla, five bridges were constructed at Bishunpur Block over Koel River, Dumri Block over Lawa River, Chainpur Block over Sankh River, Basia Block over Koel River and Kamdara Block over South Koel River. The aforesaid bridges collapsed during heavy rainfall.

Accordingly, a resolution dated 21.10.2011 was issued with regard to irregularities at the time of foundational construction of the bridge and lack of supervision at the time of initial construction with regard to bridge at Bishunpur Block over Koel River and at Chainpur Block over Sankh River.

4. The specific case of the petitioner is that though the charges were framed with regard to the irregularities at the time of construction but the punishment has been made with regard to payment made to the concerned contractor. Further, since the punishment has been made on a charge which was not in the memo of charge and the Respondents have made a third case for punishing this petitioner, as such the same is not justified.

The further case of the petitioner is that even after giving detailed reply to show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority and also filing an appeal before the appellate authority raising several grounds; none of the authorities have given any reason as to why the reply/appeal respectively filed by the petitioner is not acceptable.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed supporting the impugned order and reiterating the facts mentioned in the impugned order. However, in none of the paragraphs, it has been stated that when there was no charge with regard to making payment then how the punishment is sustainable.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through

2025:JHHC:14310

the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits it is necessary to extract charge nos.1 and 4 which were leveled against the petitioner.

vkjksi la0&1%& fo"kquiqj iz[k.M ds fo"kquiqj leanjh usrjgkV iFk ds chp dks;y unh ij fuekZ.kk/khu iqy fnukad 16-06-11 ls 19-06-11 ds chp gqbZ vR;f/kd o'kkZ (288 mm) esa iqy ds 3 fi;j esa e/; okyk ,d fi;j 6 bap lsVy gks tkus ds dkj.k nks MsdLyso 6 bap >qd x;k gSA iqy ds {kfrxzLr gksus dk eq[; dkj.k uhao dk;Z esa cjrh xbZ vfu;ferrk ,oa i;Zo{s k.k dk;Z ls layXu vfHk;arkvksa }kjk leqfpr i;Zo{s k.k ugha djuk ekuk x;k gSA vkjksi la0&4%& pSuiqj iz[k.M ds dsMxas ls tSjkxh iFk ij "ka[k unh ij fuekZ.kk/khu {kfrxzLr iqy dk LFky fujh{k.k xfBr tkap ny }kjk fd;k x;kA mDr iqy ds lHkh fi;j ,oa Msd LySc iqjh rjg /oLr ik;k x;kA iqy ds uhao dk;Z esa cjrh xbZ vfu;ferrk ,oa vfHk;arkvksa }kjk leqfpr i;Zo{s k.k dh deh gh iqy ds /oLr gksus dk eq[; dkj.k ekuk x;k gSA

7. From the enquiry report it appears that the Inquiry officer has made a third case for proving charge nos.1 and 4. For brevity, the same is extracted hereinbelow:

"leh{kk (vkjksi la0&1) .... vkjksih inkf/kdkjh }kjk bl iqy ds uho dk;Z ls vius dks vlEc/k crk;k x;k gS ,oa site order-book ds ek/;e ls ;g lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd buds dk;Zdky izkjEHk gksus ds iwoZ gh iqy dk uhao dk;Z lEiUu gks x;k Fkk] fdUrq mik;qDr] xqeyk ds i=kad 176(i) fnuakd 23-07-2011 ds }kjk izLrqr tkap izfrosnu ls ;g Li'V gS fd Jh pkSjfl;k uhao dk;Z esa lafyIr FksA miyC/k vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj ,djkjukek dh jkf"k 157-14 yk[k ds fo:) 100-569 yk[k :i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ls Jh pkSjfl;k }kjk 52-94 yk[k :i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA vr,o Jh pkSjfl;k bl vkjksi ls iw.kZ :i ls eqDr ugha gks ldrs gSaA leh{kk (vkjksi la0&4) .....mik;qDr] xqeyk i=kad 176(i) fnuakd 23-07-2011 }kjk fofHkUu tkap nyksa }kjk lefiZr izfrosnuksa ls ;g Li'V gS fd vkjksih inkf/kdkjh bl iqy ds uhao dk;Z esa lafyIr Fks ,oa vkjksih inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk ,djkjukek dh jkf"k 184-285 yk[k ds fo:) laons d dks Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA Jh pkSjfl;k bl vkjksi ls iw.kZ :i ls eqDr ugha gks ldrs gSaA"

Thus, from bare perusal of the enquiry report, it is crystal clear that the charges have been proved by making a third case.

8. By going through the impugned order of punishment dated 09.12.2013 it appears that the disciplinary authority has not given any finding with respect to the reply filed by the petitioner pursuant to the second Show-Cause Notice and simply quoted the facts and awarded punishment which cannot be said to be a reasoned and speaking order. For

2025:JHHC:14310

brevity the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 09.12.2013 is extracted hereinbelow:

".... Jh pkSjfl;k ls izkIr f}rh; dkj.k i`PNk dk mÙkj leh{kksijkar Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha ik;k x;k] D;ksfa d muds fo:) xfBr vkjksi esa of.kZr iqy dk laons d }kjk vius [kpZ ij iquZfuekZ.k ugha djk;s tkus ls mlij O;; dh xbZ ljdkjh jkf"k fu'Qy jg tkrh gSA vkjksi i= esa of.kZr iqyksa ds {kfrxzLr gks tkus ds dkj.k mDr iqyksa ij fd;k x;k ljdkjh jkf"k dk O;; fu'Qy gks tkus ds dkj.k lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ls izkIr earO; ij lgefr O;Dr djrs gq, Jh lqjsUnz pkSjfl;k] fuyfEcr dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark ¼rnsu lfpo izkoSf/kdh½ ds fo:) lapkfyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dks fuEu :i ls fu'ikfnr fd;k tkrk gS%& 1½ Jh lqjsUnz pkSjfl;k dks muds lsokfuo`fÙk dh frfFk vFkkZr~ fnuakd&31-01-2013 ds izHkko ls fuyEcu ls eqDr fd;k tkrk gSA 2½ >kj[k.M is"a ku fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 43 ¼ch½ ds vkyksd esa mUgsa ns; isa"ku dh jkf"k esa 15% dh dVkSrh dh tkrh gSA 3½ muds fuyEcu vof/k ds osru vkfn ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; muds fo:) nk;j QkStnkjh eqdnek esa ikfjr vkns"k ds vkyksd esas fd;k tk;sxkA"

9. From bare perusal of the impugned order, I am having no hesitation in holding that on the one hand, it is completely non-speaking and non-reasoned order and on the other hand; the disciplinary authority has failed to appreciate that the Inquiry Officer while proving the charge nos. 1 and 4 has made a third case against this petitioner and the disciplinary authority has simply extracted the finding which is not permissible in the eye of law.

10. Even the order passed by the appellate authority similar perversity has been found. In the case of "Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India and Others"1 the Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of "Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others"2 has laid down the guidelines on the issue of recording of reasons. Para 40 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:

"40. In Kranti Associates this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in SCC para 47 of the judgment which are set out below: (SCC pp. 510 12) "(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible

(2010) 13 SCC 427

(2010) 9 SCC 496

2025:JHHC:14310

arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision- maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harv. L. Rev. 731-37.)

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence.

See Ruiz Torija v. Spain, EHRR at p. 562, para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions'.

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of 'due process'."

11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside on both counts. Firstly, the Respondents have made a third case against the petitioner which was not reflected from the charge memo and on the other hand; the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority is completely non-speaking and non-reasoned order which is against the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred to above.

12. Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment contained in Notification No. 3166 dated 09.12.2013 and the appellate order contained in resolution dated 26.08.2014, are hereby, quashed and set aside. The entire consequential benefits shall be extended to this petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; failing

2025:JHHC:14310

which the concerned respondent shall be liable to pay interest to the petitioner upon the monetary benefits from the date of deduction till the date of actual payment.

13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit AF R