Jharkhand High Court
Bhupendra Singh Son Of Late Teza Singh ... vs The Union Of India Through Its Director on 27 November, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:35387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5915 of 2018
---------
Bhupendra Singh Son of Late Teza Singh aged about 38 years
Address G.M. 51/B G.M. Colony, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S.
Bokaro, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through its Director, Human Resource
Department (HRD) office of Executive Director (H.R.),
D.V.C. Towers, V.I.P. Road Kolkata-54, P.O. & P.S.
Kolkata, District-Kolkata, West Bengal.
2. The Principal Chief Engineer & In-Charge office of the
Executive Director (HR), D.V.C. Towers, V.I.P. Road
Kolkata 54 P.O. & P.S. Kolkata, District-Kolkata, West
Bengal.
3. The Senior Additional Chief Accountant Officer, BTPS,
DVC Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District-Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
4. The Chief Engineer & Project Head D.V.C., BTPS, Bokaro,
P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.
5. Dy. General Manager (Finance) DVC, BTPS Bokaro, P.O.
& P.S. District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.
6. Senior Personal Manager DVC, BTPS Thermal Bokaro,
P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.
....Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : M/s. Rupesh Singh, Amrendra Pradhan,
Advocates
For the Resp.-DVC : Mr. R.N.Sahay, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate
Mr. Tanya Rai, Advocate
---------
C.A.V. ON: 16.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 27/11/2025
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
2025:JHHC:35387
petitioner for the following reliefs;
(A) For direction commanding upon the respondents to issue the
appointment offer letter to the petitioner for post of Executive (Finance) M-I
in DVC, BTPS Bokaro, because the petitioner has already been declared
successful candidate in personal interview as per notification/
advertisement no PLR-ADVT/2016-2017/06, published on dated 9th
January 2017, by Department and the name of petitioner serial has been
prepared in merit list as no-2, bearing appl. No-96051, but the petitioner
has not been considered for said post which is arbitrary, malafide and
against the provision of law; whereby and where under the petitioner has
been performing well his service for post of Junior Clerk - Cum Typist DVC,
Bokaro since year of 2005, in same department, during his service period
the opportunity of vacancy available for departmental candidates offered
by the department for post of Executive (Finance) M-I, even junior of
petitioner has been made promotion in place of the petitioner.
B. For issuance of appropriate order to set-a-side the letter dated
04/09/2018, vide letter no. PL-NT-7/31501609, issued by the Deputy
Director-HR-(N.T.) in concerned department without any basis by
mentioning that there is no scope for issuance of appointment offer letter to
the petitioner.
AND/OR
For further issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/Order(s)/direction(s) as Your
Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this
case for interest of justice.
3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was granted study leave to
complete his PG diploma. On 09.01.2007, the petitioner
completed his diploma. However, he resumed his duty on
13.07.2010 for which explanation was sought from him to
which the petitioner duly replied. Thereafter, a departmental
proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for which
memo of charge was issued on 21.06.2012. Thereafter on
03.01.2018, punishment of withholding next increment on
2025:JHHC:35387
cumulative basis was imposed on the petitioner which on
appeal was modified to withholding next increment on non-
cumulative basis.
Meanwhile on 09.01.2017, an advertisement for the post
of Executive Finance M-I was published for which the
petitioner applied and was declared successful. However, no
appointment offer letter has been issued to the petitioner on
the ground that the petitioner concealed the fact of pendency
of departmental proceeding against him while applying for the
post of executive finance. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has
preferred the present writ application.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
there was no suppression of fact on part of the petitioner and
the respondents by not considering the candidature of the
petitioner are acting contrary to the law. He had also argued
that in the light of memorandum no. 1067, departmental
enquiries should be completed within 6 months from the date
of appointment of enquiry officer but even then, the charge
memorandum which was served on 21.06.2012 could not be
completed within the set time limit.
5. It has been further submitted that the qualification and
eligibility of the petitioner for the post of Executive Finance is
not disputed by the respondent authorities and the only
2025:JHHC:35387
ground for rejection of candidature is concealment of the fact
that departmental proceeding was pending against the
petitioner which is baseless as in the application form details
of criminal/civil/vigilance case was required to be filled up
and not that of departmental proceeding.
6. Per Contra, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the respondent
authorities contended that when the petitioner applied for the
post of Executive Finance, he suppressed the fact of pending
departmental proceeding against him; as such the claim
made by the petitioner is misconceived and wrong.
He had also submitted that when the petitioner was
declared successful and before issuance of appointment letter
during the vigilance clearance, it was found that a
disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner as
such he could not be given the appointment letter.
7. Learned Counsel further brought the attention of this
Court towards clause no. 8 (ix) of the advertisement which
stipulates that the decision of the DVC in all matters relating
to eligibility, acceptance, penalty for false information, place
of posting to the selected candidate shall be final and binding
on the candidate and contended that the impugned order
requires no interference. He lastly submitted that the panel
2025:JHHC:35387
has already lapsed; as such, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the documents annexed with the respective
affidavits it appears that the main grievance of the petitioner
is that even though he has been declared successful for the
post of Executive Finance, then also his candidature was not
considered.
It appears that the qualification and eligibility of the
petitioner for the aforementioned post is not disputed by the
respondent authorities. Learned Counsel for the respondent
authorities contended that since the petitioner concealed the
factum of pendency of departmental proceeding against him,
the impugned order is correct in law and needs no
interference.
9. This contention of Ld. Sr. Counsel for the respondents is
not acceptable to this Court as on perusal of the application
form of the petitioner against the post of Executive Finance, it
becomes crystal clear that there was no entry requiring
disclosure of pending departmental proceeding and entry no.
19 on which the respondent authorities are relying, required
details disclosing Criminal/Civil/Vigilance case which are
different from departmental proceeding.
2025:JHHC:35387
10. The very nature of criminal/civil/vigilance cases is very
different from departmental proceeding as criminal case is a
legal proceeding initiated by the government against an
individual or organization accused of a crime, civil case is
more of private in nature and vigilance case involves
allegations of corruption, moral turpitude, or other serious
misconduct with a potential for financial gain.
Further, the first two are judicial proceedings and the
third i.e. vigilance case is deemed to be judicial proceeding;
whereas departmental disciplinary proceedings are a formal,
internal process used by organizations to address employee
misconduct or poor performance by upholding rules and
standards through a structured series of actions and they are
quasi-judicial in nature.
Reliance in this regard may be placed upon judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagar
Panchayat Umari v. Shyam Charan Chaturvedi1 wherein
it has been categorically held that it is trite law that the
departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings and
the enquiry officer functions in a quasi-judicial capacity.
11. Thus, it is the mistake on behalf of the respondent
authorities that neither did they provide any column/ entry
(2023) 18 SCC 311
2025:JHHC:35387
in the application form for the disclosure of any disciplinary
proceeding; nor did they provide any clarification that
entry/column no. 19 of the application form also required the
disclosure of departmental proceeding along with
Criminal/Civil/Vigilance case if any.
The respondent authorities should not have expected
from the petitioner to read between lines while applying for
the advertised post and to disclose the pending departmental
proceeding when only the details of Criminal/Civil/Vigilance
case was required.
12. Now coming to the second leg of the argument of the
Respondents that since the panel has already lapsed, as such
no relief can be granted to the petitioner; has no legs to stand
as by order dated 24.09.2024 this Court modified the order
dated 31.07.2024 to the extent that the respondents shall
proceed with the appointment in the light of Advertisement
No. PLR/Fin & MO/2024/07/04, however the respondents
were directed to reserve one post till the final disposal of this
writ application.
Thus, there is a vacancy and the petitioner is duly
qualified for the appointment for the advertised post.
2025:JHHC:35387
13. Having regard to the above discussion, the impugned
order dated 24/09/2018 vide letter no. PL-NT-7/31501609
issued by Deputy Director HR stating that there is no scope
of issuance appointment letter to the petitioner, is hereby,
quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to
issue appointment offer letter to the petitioner for the post of
Executive Finance M-I in DVC, BTPS Bokaro forthwith.
14. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed
and pending I.A., if any, is also closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
November 27, 2025
Amardeep/-
N.A.F.R.
Uploaded
27/11/2025
