Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:29976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.S No. 2974 of 2024
----
Sanjay Kumar Sharma, aged about 55 years Son of Tarkeshwer Sharma,
Resident of Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, P.O. & P.S. - Chas,
District - Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Project Building,
P.O. - Dhurwa, P.S. - Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi.
2. The Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government
of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG
----
07/ 23.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the
following reliefs:-
(a)For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/ order (s) /
direction (s) in the nature of mandamus commanding
upon the concerned authorities specifically the
Respondent No. 2 for quashing /setting aside the order
contained in Notification bearing Sanchika Sankhya-
04/Aa-01-1009/2021 No. 2920 dated 21.07.2022
passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand; whereby and where under the following
punishments have been imposed: -
(i) Reduction in pay scale for 03 years on 05 stage
lower grade
(ii) No increment will be admissible to him during the
said reduction period and after the expiry of the said
reduction, his future increments will be to
be postponed
(iii) Also, the suspension period will not be considered
as duty period
2025:JHHC:29976
AND
(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/ order (s) /
direction (s) in the nature of mandamus commanding
upon the concerned authorities specifically the
Respondent No. 2 for quashing /setting aside the order
contained in Resolution bearing Resolution No.
Sankalp S- 4/ Αα-01-1009/21/5025 dated 17.11.2023
passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand; whereby and where under the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid
punishment order has been dismissed.
AND
(c) For grant of consequential benefits to the petitioner
for which he is entitled to.
3. The petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer in the
Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Jharkhand, posted at Chaibasa.
He was accused of making irregular payments based on forged vouchers
without completion of work or supply of materials which came to the
knowledge of Departmental Minister. Based on the findings, departmental
proceedings was initiated, and petitioner was suspended. The Enquiry Officer
found him partially guilty and department imposed a penalty, including
reduction by 5 stages in his pay scale for 3 years without increment and the
suspension period not to be treated on duty. The enquiry report was submitted
and show cause was issued to the petitioner, thereafter the punishment was
imposed. The petitioner also preferred an appeal, but the same was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental
enquiry was conducted in violation of the Jharkhand Government Servants
(Classifications, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016. He further submits that the
enquiry process was unfair, as the department failed to provide a list of
witnesses as required under Rule 17(3)(ii)(b) of the Rule 2016, and no
witnesses were examined during the enquiry. Only a list of documents was
provided without proving the charges through proper evidence. The
investigation report was vague and proper site verification was also not done.
He submits that the department took a one-sided decision, making the entire
enquiry process arbitrary, biased, and illegal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the
entire departmental proceeding has been conducted in accordance with law
2025:JHHC:29976
and ample opportunity was given to the petitioner. He argues that the enquiry
report, dated 19.05.2022, was based on proper consideration of documents
and evidence in which the petitioner was found guilty after an enquiry into
irregular payments made by him. He also submits that there is no perversity in
the findings of the enquiry officer and the departmental proceeding was
conducted in terms of provisions contained in Jharkhand Government
Servants (Classifications, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016.
6. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I
find that the enquiry was conducted without providing the petitioner with the
list of witnesses as mandated under clause-17 (3)(ii)(b) of the Jharkhand
Government Servants (Classifications, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016. It is
necessary to quote Rule 17 (3) of the Jharkhand Government Servants
(Classifications, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016, which reads as hereunder:-
17. Procedure for imposing major penalties :-
1).....
2).....
3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government
Servant under this rule, the Disciplinary Authority shall draw up or
cause to be drawn up
i. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour
as a definite and distinct article of charge.
ii. A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in
support of each article of charge, which shall contain :-
a) A statement of all relevant facts including any admission or
confession made by the Government Servant;
b) A list of such document by which, and a list of such witnesses
by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained."
As per clause-17 (3) of the Jharkhand Government Servants
(Classifications, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016, a Disciplinary Authority shall
draw up the charge containing the substance of imputation of misconduct; the
charge should be definite and there should be distinct article of charge.
Further, the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support
of each charge shall contain the statement of relevant facts, list of such
documents and list of such witnesses by whom the Article of Charge are
proposed to be sustained. Therefore, when charges are framed, Article of
Charge must contain list of witnesses along with list of documents by which
the Authority wants to prove the charge. Further, only documentary evidence
alone is not enough; the documents need to be proved by oral evidence.
Though the strict rule of Evidence Act is not applicable in a departmental
proceeding, still the documents needs to be proved in departmental
proceedings also. No witnesses were examined in this case, thus, the charges
were not sufficiently proved. I find that the enquiry report appears to be based
2025:JHHC:29976
on incomplete and vague investigation report, with no proper verification of
facts at the project sites. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh & Others versus Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2
SCC 772 has held that the Inquiry Officer should act as an independent
adjudicator and his function is to examine the evidence even in the absence of
delinquent official. It is necessary to quote paragraph 28 and 33 of the
aforesaid judgment, which read as under:-
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.
33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent
has been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon
against him, but he has been condemned unheard as the inquiry
officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other
words, not a single witness has been examined in support of the
charges levelled against the respondent. The High Court, therefore,
has rightly observed that the entire proceedings are vitiated having
been conducted in complete violation of the principles of natural
justice and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never had
any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an
explanation against the allegations made in the charge-sheet.
7. The importance and necessity of adducing oral evidence in
departmental proceeding is emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank & Others reported
in (2009) 2 SCC 570, at paragraph 14 thereof, which 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.
8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and observation made herein above, I am inclined to allow this
writ petition. The order as contained in Notification bearing Sanchika Sankhya-
04/Aa-01-1009/2021 No.2920 dated 21.07.2022 by which the petitioner has
2025:JHHC:29976
been punished as also the order as contained in Resolution No. Sankalp S-
4/Aa-01-1009/21/5025 dated 17.11.2023 by which the appeal preferred by the
petitioner has been dismissed, are hereby quashed.
9. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Ranchi, dated 23rd September, 2025
Kumar/Cp-02
