[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Ashutosh Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:10192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 1107 of 2021
----------
Ashutosh Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Srikrishna Kumar, resident
of Raj High School Road, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, Dist. Pakur.
.......... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.
& P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, Dist. Chatra
.......... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV
----------
09/ 09.04.2026 The instant application has been preferred for following
reliefs:
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order
(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the
Resolution contained in Memo No. 1490 dated 10.2.2021
(Annexure-8) issued under the signature of Joint Secretary,
Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Raj
Bhasha (Respondent No.3) by which the impugned order has
been issued in which the petitioner has been communicated the
decision of the competent authority about his dismissal from the
service under the provision of Rule 14 (XI) of Jharkhand
Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule
2016 and the aforesaid decision has been taken pursuant to the
departmental proceeding.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order
(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding
upon the respondents restraining them to give effect to the
impugned resolution dated 10.2.2021.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order
(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of
the inquiry report dated 6.6.2019 along with second show cause
notice vide letter no. 9203 dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure-6 series)
where the inquiry officer has given the finding that all the
charges have been proved against the petitioner.
2026:JHHC:10192
(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order
(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding
upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service
once the petitioner is directed to be reinstated after setting aside
the order of dismissal and to pay all consequential benefits to
the petitioner.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order of termination suffers from procedural
irregularities in view of the fact that no oral witness has been
examined and the documents which has been relied by the
respondent-authorities was not kept for ordinary course of
business; as such, as per the settled law, due to want of
examination of oral witness, the impugned order is vitiated.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that grave charge
of defalcating Rs.6.00 crores approx. was levelled against the
petitioner and other co-accused. However, he fairly admits after
going through the charge-sheet that oral witness has not been
examined and the punishment order has been issued on the basis of
different reports of internal enquiries and as such, he submits that,
at best, the matter may be remitted back and some time may be
given to the respondent-authorities so that the fresh order shall be
passed by curing the procedural irregularities committed earlier.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, without going into
the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 10.2.2021
(Annexure-8) and inquiry report dated 6.6.2019 along with second
show cause notice vide letter no. 9203 dated 20.11.2019
(Annexure-6 series) are quashed and set aside on the ground that it
suffers from procedural irregularities, inasmuch as, now it is
settled principle of law that any document/ charge has to be proved
by oral witness and the enquiry officer has to act as an Umpire and
not as the representative of the department.
5. However, looking to the gravity of charge and also after
considering the submission of the respondent-State, the matter is
2026:JHHC:10192
remitted to respondent no. 4 with a direction to proceed in
accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations and
thereafter, pass a fresh order within a period six months from the
date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
6. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
9th April, 2026
Kunal/-
Uploaded on 16.04.2026
