Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar Sultania vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 November, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:33109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1542 of 2021
Sunil Kumar Sultania, aged about 60 years, son of Late Murli Manohar Sultania,
resident of Flat No. F-201, Hari Om Tower, Circular Road, P.O. Ranchi G.P.O.,
P.S. Lalpur, District. Ranchi-834001. ......... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Road
Construction Department, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, PIN 834004.
2. Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District
Ranchi, PIN 834004.
3. Under Secretary, Road Construction Department, having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District
Ranchi, PIN 834004. ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
........
For Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Gadodia, Advocate
Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate,
Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate,
Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II,
Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P.-II
CAV on: 13.10.2025 Delivered on:03/11/2025
JUDGMENT
1. The instant writ application has been filed by Writ Petitioner
praying therein for following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for
quashing/setting aside Second Show Cause Notice, contained in Letter
No. 309(S) dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure-12), wherein the Petitioner has
been asked to show cause as to why major penalty of "reduction to a
minimum stage in the time scale of pay" be not imposed upon the
Petitioner in exercise of the power under Rule 14 of the "Jharkhand
Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016"
(hereinafter referred to as 'C.C.A. Rules' for short), as being wholly
illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
and being contrary to the provisions of C.C.A. Rules.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, for
quashing/setting aside Letter No. 433(S) dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure-
2025:JHHC:33109
13), being a reminder second Show Cause Notice issued to the
Petitioner, directing the Petitioner to show cause as to why major
penalty of "reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay" be
not imposed upon the Petitioner in exercise of the power under Rule 14
of C.C.A. Rules.
(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction
directing the Respondents not to arbitrarily discriminate the Petitioner
in the matter of imposition of penalty with that of the similarly situated
employee namely, Vinod Kumar, upon whom minor penalty of
'Censure' in respect of identical charges levelled against him, has been
imposed.
(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for
quashing/setting aside the Order, contained in Letter No. 1297(S) dated
30.03.2021 (Annexure-15), wherein the major penalty of "reduction to
a minimum stage in the time scale of pay" has been imposed upon the
Petitioner in exercise of the power under Rule 14 of the Jharkhand
Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016,
as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and being contrary to the provisions of C.C.A.
Rules.
(v)For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s)
as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(vi)
2. The writ application was initially filed challenging Second
Show Cause Notice including reminder Second Show Cause Notice,
wherein Petitioner was asked to show cause as to why major penalty of
"reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay" be not imposed
upon Petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 14 of Jharkhand
Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016).
However, during pendency of the writ application final order imposing
punishment, contained in Letter No.1297(S) dated 30.03.2021
(Annexure-15) was passed against Petitioner, wherein major penalty of
"reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay" was imposed
upon Petitioner under Rule 14 of C.C.A. Rules. Said order was
challenged by filing an amendment application, which was allowed by
this Court and, thereafter, a consolidated amended Writ Petition was
filed.
3. Shorn of necessary details from the facts, it transpires that
Petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect
from 01.12.2014. While Petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer in
2025:JHHC:33109
Rural Development Department (Rural Works Affairs), Works
Division, Bokaro, an inspection was carried out by the Secretary, Rural
Development Department (Rural Works Affairs) on 10.02.2016 in
Works Division, Bokaro and certain ongoing works pertaining to Chas
and Chandankiyari Sub-divisions were inspected by the Secretary.
Consequent upon such inspection, Petitioner was issued a Show Cause
Notice dated 25.02.2016 by the Secretary, wherein it was alleged that
Petitioner was negligent in performing his duties relating to supervision
of road works including submission of incorrect proposal for
administrative approval pertaining to sanction of road.
4. Exactly similar Show Cause Notices were issued to Assistant
Engineer namely, Vinod Kumar and Junior Engineer, namely, Anil
Kumar, vide Letter Nos. 1000 and 1001 both dated 23.02.2016 and
exactly same set of allegations were levelled regarding negligence in
carrying out supervision of road works in question.\
5. Petitioner denied the allegations and even Assistant Engineer
and Junior Engineer also denied the allegations levelled in the Show
Cause Notice, by submitting their explanations and, thereafter,
Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer were put under suspension, but
Petitioner was not suspended and was allowed to perform his duties.
6. However, vide Resolution contained in Memo No. 4735(S) WE
dated 28.07.2016, departmental proceeding was initiated against
Petitioner and charge-sheet was issued to him, wherein only charge
levelled against Petitioner was 'negligence in performing his duties
pertaining to supervision of roads and submission of incorrect proposal
for administrative approval for sanction of roads'.
7. Petitioner submitted his defence reply and, thereafter,
departmental enquiry was initiated against Petitioner and an Enquiry
Report was submitted by Enquiry Officer. After a lapse of about 20
months from the date of submission of Enquiry Report, a Second Show
Cause Notice contained in Letter No. 1100(S)WE dated 21.02.2019
was issued to Petitioner asking the Petitioner to show cause as to why
major penalty be not imposed upon Petitioner.
2025:JHHC:33109
8. Petitioner replied to Second Show Cause Notice denying the
charges levelled against him on 12.04.2019.
9. Despite submission of reply, no order was communicated to
Petitioner, but again another Second Show Cause Notice contained in
Letter Nol. 4392(S) dated 04.09.2019 was issued to Petitioner, wherein
Petitioner was show caused as to why penalty in terms of Rule 14 of
C.C.A. Rules be not imposed upon him of 'withholdment of two
increments with cumulative effect'. Petitioner again submitted his reply
to said Second Show Cause Notice, vide reply dated 20.02.2020, but
again no order imposing penalty was communicated to Petitioner.
10. Thereafter a third Second Show Cause Notice contained in
Letter No. 309(S) dated 29.01.2021 was issued to Petitioner asking him
to show cause as to why major penalty of "reduction to a minimum
stage in the time scale of pay" be not imposed upon Petitioner.
11. Accordingly, Petitioner filed writ application challenging said
de novo Second Show Cause Notice. However, during pendency of the
writ application, an order dated 30.03.2021, contained in Memo No.
1297(S) was passed, wherein major penalty of "reduction to a
minimum stage in the time scale of pay" was imposed upon Petitioner,
wherein pay of the Petitioner was reduced from Rs. 1,55,025/- to Rs.
99,900/- with effect from 30.03.2021. Petitioner superannuated from
service on 31.03.2021.
12. Mr. Sumeet Kumar Gadodia, assisted by Mr. Mr. Prakhar Harit,
while assailing de novo Second Show Cause Notice and order imposing
penalty, primarily raised following grounds: -
(i) Issuance of de novo Second Show Cause Notice, wherein
earlier penalty of 'Withholdment of two increments with
cumulative effect' was substituted with penalty of "reduction to a
minimum stage in the time scale of pay", is violative of C.C.A.
Rules as Respondent-authorities cannot be permitted to issue one
after another Second Show Cause Notices proposing different sets
of penalties to be imposed upon Petitioner on the same set of
charges.
2025:JHHC:33109
(ii) It was submitted that penalty imposed upon Petitioner is
beyond the provisions of Rule 14 of 'C.C.A. Rules', as said Rule
does not contemplate imposing of penalty of "reduction to a
minimum stage in the time scale of pay".
(iii) It was further contended that exactly on the same set of
charges, Show Cause Notices and departmental proceedings were
initiated against Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer and said
authorities were imposed only minor penalty of 'Censure',
whereas in discriminatory and mala fide manner, Petitioner has
been imposed a major penalty.
(iv) It was further argued that penalty imposed upon
Petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him
and said penalty has been imposed just one day prior to retirement
of Petitioner, actuated with malice in law and in a mala fide
manner.
13. Per contra, Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P.-II defended the
action of Respondent State of Jharkhand and raised following issues:-
(i) Petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring Appeal under
Rule 24 of 'C.C.A. Rules' and, hence, writ petition may not be
entertained due to availability of alternative remedy.
(ii) It was submitted that although Petitioner was earlier
issued Show Cause Notice for imposition of penalty of only
'withholdment of two increments with cumulative effect', but a
fresh Show Cause Notice was required to be issued to Petitioner,
as he was to superannuate on 31.03.2021, and penalty earlier
proposed would not have any impact upon Petitioner due to his
retirement and under said circumstances, a fresh de novo Second
Show Cause Notice was issued.
(iii) While admitting that Assistant Engineer, namely, Vinod
Kumar, against whom on identical charges, departmental
proceeding was initiated, was only imposed minor penalty of
'Censure'; Petitioner's case was sought to be distinguished by
contending, inter alia, that Petitioner, being a superior officer, has
2025:JHHC:33109
more responsibility upon him to execute the work properly and
Petitioner cannot escape from such responsibility by putting blame
upon subordinates.
(iv) On the issue of disproportionate punishment, it was
submitted that penalty imposed upon Petitioner is not shocking
disproportionate to the charges levelled against Petitioner and,
accordingly, it was submitted that this Court may not interfere
with the order imposing penalty upon Petitioner.
FINDINGS
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and, on perusal of
relevant documents, it transpires that facts in the present case are not
disputed which has been already narrated above.
15. Petitioner along with Assistant Engineer namely, Vinod Kumar
and Junior Engineer, namely Anil Kumar were proceeded in
departmental proceedings on identical set of charges regarding
negligence in carrying out supervision work of roads including
forwarding of incorrect proposals for administrative approval for
sanction of roads.
16. It is an admitted fact that in respect of departmental proceeding
initiated against Vinod Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Respondent-Road
Construction Department, vide Notification dated 26.05.2017, closed
the departmental proceeding by only imposing minor penalty of
'Censure' against him. Said fact is not denied in the Counter Affidavit,
but it has only been stated that Petitioner, being superior officer, had
more responsibility than his subordinates and, thus, the case of
Petitioner cannot be equated with that of Assistant Engineer and Junior
Engineer. However, Petitioner, in his reply to Second Show Cause
Notice, specifically brought to the notice of Respondent-authorities the
provisions of P.W.D. Code, wherein responsibility of execution of
work lies upon Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive
Engineer and Petitioner was only a supervising authority. Petitioner
also brought to the notice of Respondent-authorities that Petitioner was
In-charge of entire works of Division, whereas it was the Assistant
Engineer and Junior Engineer who were In-charge of works of Sub-
2025:JHHC:33109
Division, where works of construction of roads were being carried out,
and said works were under direct supervision and control of the said
authorities.
17. On the strength of above, Petitioner specifically pleaded that
role of Petitioner, to the extent of supervision and forwarding of
proposal for administrative approval of roads, was quite limited in
nature and, Assistant Engineer was directly responsible for supervision
of roads including preparation of estimates and, thus, Petitioner cannot
be discriminated in the matter of imposition of penalty.
18. Said contention of Petitioner has not been even considered by
Respondent-authorities and, merely, it has been stated that Petitioner,
being superior officer, had more responsibility than that of his Juniors,
and, thus, major penalty has been imposed upon Petitioner, which, in
the opinion of the Court, is not sustainable in the eye of law. In this
regard, reference may be made to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of 'State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors Vs. Raj Pal
Singh, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 783, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under: -
3. The respondent assailed the legality of the order by approaching the Public Services
Tribunal. The Tribunal having refused to interfere, he approached the High Court. The High
Court came to the conclusion that the charges and the delinquency being same and identical,
and all the employees having been served with a set of charges out of the same incident,
there was no justifiable reason to pass different orders of punishment, and therefore, the
order of dismissal cannot be sustained. The High Court consequently set aside the order of
dismissal and directed stoppage of five increments in case of the respondent as was the order
in case of some other Assistant Warders. The High Court further directed that the delinquent
respondent would be paid only 50% of back wages. It is this order of the High Court which is
the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.
4. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that once the charges have been held to be
established, it was not appropriate for the High Court to interfere with the quantum of
punishment and judged from this standpoint, the order of the High Court cannot be
sustained. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court
in B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Secy. to Govt., Home Deptt. v. Srivaikundathan.
5. Though, on principle the ratio in aforesaid cases would ordinarily apply, but in the case
in hand, the High Court appears to have considered the nature of charges levelled against
the five employees who stood charged on account of the incident that happened on the same
day and then the High Court came to the conclusion that since the gravity of charges was the
same, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to impose different punishments for
different delinquents. The reasoning given by the High Court cannot be faulted with since the
State is not able to indicate as to any difference in the delinquency of these employees.
6. It is undoubtedly open for the disciplinary authority to deal with the delinquency and
once charges are established to award appropriate punishment. But when the charges are
same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents
differently in the award of punishment, would be discriminatory. In this view of the matter,
2025:JHHC:33109
we see no infirmity with the impugned order requiring our interference under Article 136 of
the Constitution.
19. Said Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely
applicable in the case of Petitioner, as, on identical set of charges, order
of imposition of punishment of 'Censure' has been passed against
Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer, whereas Petitioner has been
imposed major penalty, that too, one day prior to his retirement, which
is clearly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
20. Apart from above, another aspect, which requires consideration
by this Court is issuance of repeated Second Show Cause Notices to
Petitioner proposing varied penalties upon Petitioner. Initially, a
Second Show Cause Notice contained in Letter No. 1100(S)/WE dated
21.02.2019 (Annexure 8 series) was issued to Petitioner asking him to
show cause as to why major penalty be not imposed; and Petitioner
submitted his reply to said Second Show Cause Notice on 12.04.2019.
Thereafter, no order was passed imposing penalty upon Petitioner and
after about five months, another Second Show Cause Notice contained
in Letter No. 4392(S) dated 04.09.2019 was issued to Petitioner
directing him to show cause as to why penalty of 'withholdment of two
increments with cumulative effect' be not imposed upon Petitioner.
Petitioner again denied the charges and requested to drop the
proceedings vide his reply dated 20.02.2020.
21. Thereafter, after a lapse of about one year, another de novo
Second Show Cause Notice contained in Letter No. 309(S) dated
29.01.2021 was issued to Petitioner asking him to show cause as to why
major penalty of "reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of
pay" be not imposed upon him. Thus, from the records of the case, it
transpires that departmental proceeding was initiated against Petitioner
in the month of July, 2016; Enquiry Report was submitted in the month
of November, 2016 and, thereafter, three separate Show Cause Notices
were issued i.e. on 21.02.2019, 04.09.2019 and 29.01.2021.
Justification for issuance of de novo Second Show Cause Notice (being
third notice) is given in Para-15 of the Counter Affidavit, wherein it has
been stated that since Petitioner was to superannuate from service on
2025:JHHC:33109
31.03.2021, impact of the proposed punishment of 'withholdment of
two increments with cumulative effect' would not have reflected upon
Petitioner and it is only because of the said reason, de novo Show
Cause Notice dated 29.01.2021 was issued to Petitioner.
22. In the opinion of this Court, said ground taken by Respondents
in their Counter Affidavit is patently arbitrary and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. As already stated above, Enquiry
Report was submitted as far back as in November, 2016 and, thereafter,
for almost five years, one after other Show Cause Notices were issued
to Petitioner, but no penalty was imposed upon him. In fact, on
21.02.2019, Show Cause Notice was issued for imposition of penalty of
'withholdment of two increments with cumulative effect' and if order
for said penalty would have been passed immediately thereafter, at best
two increments of Petitioner would have been withheld at the time of
his retirement and his pay would have been reduced by only two
increments. However, Respondents chose not to pass any order on
aforesaid Second Show Cause Notice, and, just one month prior to the
date of retirement of Petitioner, a penalty was proposed of "reduction to
a minimum stage in the time scale of pay", meaning thereby that all
increments earned by Petitioner during his service career would be
annulled and Petitioner would be dropped to the lowest scale of pay.
Justification given for issuance of de novo Second Show Cause Notice
that earlier Show Cause Notice would not have any impact upon
Petitioner due to his retirement, is manifestly arbitrary and illegal, as
Respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrongs. On one hand
Respondents have not passed any order pursuant to issuance of Second
Show Cause Notice, and on the other hand, are taking plea that since
Petitioner was going to retire, a de novo penalty was proposed so that
said penalty may have impact upon Petitioner. This is not sustainable in
the eye of law.
23. Yet another aspect which requires consideration by this Court
is, as to whether penalty imposed upon Petitioner is in accordance with
Rule 14 of C.C.A. Rules, 2016. Rule 14(7) and Rule 14(8) provide for
imposition of penalty in following manners: -
2025:JHHC:33109
"14. Minor and Major Penalties. -- The following penalties may, for
good and sufficient reasons and as herein after provided, be
imposed on a Government Servant, namely--
Minor Penalties--
(i) xxx xxx xxx
(ii) xxx xxx xxx
Major Penalties-
xxx xxx xxx
(vii) Save as provided in clause (iii) reduction to a lower stage in the
time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as
to whether or not the Government Servant will earn increments of
pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry
of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of
postponing the future increments of his pay.
(viii) Reduction to lower time scale of pay, grade, post or Service for a
period to be specified in the order of penalty, which shall be a bar
to the promotion of the Government Servant during such specified
period to the time scale of pay, grade, post or Service from which
he was reduced, with direction as to whether or not, on promotion
on the expiry of the said specified period--
(a) The period of reduction to time scale of pay, grade, post or
services shall operate to postpone future increments of his
pay, and if so, to what extent; and
(b) The Government Servant shall regain his seniority in the
higher time scale of pay, grade, post or service."
24. A bare perusal of aforesaid sub-rules (vii) and (viii) of Rule 14
would reveal that said clauses provide for "reduction to lower stage in
the time scale of pay for a specified period". In the impugned order,
order of "reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay" has
been passed without specifying the period of the order of penalty. In
fact, since Petitioner was going to superannuate on 31.03.2021and
penalty order has been passed on 30.03.2021 without providing for
specific period of such penalty, the penalty would operate in perpetuity
against Petitioner and his entire retiral benefits including Pension, etc.
would be effected in perpetuity, which is not permitted under Rule
14(vii) and 14(viii) of C.C.A. Rules.
2025:JHHC:33109
25. In the present case, salary of Petitioner due to imposition of
penalty has been reduced from Rs. 1,55,025/- to Rs. 99,990/- i.e. more
than 1/3rd of the salary of Petitioner has been reduced just one day prior
to his retirement. Such order imposing penalty is not countenanced
under Rule 14(vii) & (viii) and, thus, cannot be sustained in the eye of
law.
26. In view of cumulative facts and circumstances mentioned
hereinabove, order contained in Letter No. 1297(S) dated 30.03.2021, is
hereby, quashed and set aside. Since Petitioner has already
superannuated from service, Respondents are directed to recompute
retiral benefits including Pension of Petitioner and to release
differential arrear of Pension and retiral benefits to Petitioner within a
period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of
this order.
27. Further, Pension and post retiral benefits admissible to
Petitioner would be computed on the basis of last pay drawn without
taking into effect the penalty order dated 30.03.2021. It is made clear
that in the event, differential arrears of retiral benefits and Pension is
not paid to Petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated period, Petitioner
would be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on due and payable
amount with effect from 01.04.2021 till the date of payment of such
amount.
28. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Pending
Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Deepak Roshan, J)
November 03, 2025
Amardeep/
AFR/
Uploaded
06/11/2025
