2026:JHHC:4619-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 159 of 2023
---------
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,
Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa,
P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
2. The Joint Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms
and Rajbhasa Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi,
P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Palamau, Palamau
Division Palamau, P.O. and P.S. and District-Palamau.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. &
District-Palamau. ..... Appellant(s)
Versus
Dr. Anwar Hussain, Son of Md. Quayum, resident of
Barkagaon, P.O. & P.S. Barkagaon, District-Hazaribagh.
.....Respondent(s)
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II
Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II
For the Respondent : Mr. Jayant Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv
---------
C.A.V. On: 05.02.2026 Pronounced on :17/02/2026
Per Deepak Roshan, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This interlocutory application seeks condonation of
delay of 356 days in instituting the appeal.
3. We have perused the averments set out in
interlocutory application and we are satisfied that the
cause shown is sufficient.
4. Accordingly, we condone the delay and disposed of
I.A. No. 3269 of 2023.
5. With the consent of the parties, the matter was
2026:JHHC:4619-DB
heard on merit.
6. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order
dated 12-12-2022, passed by the learned writ court in
W.P.(S) No. 7251 of 2017; whereby the writ petition was
allowed and the order of dismissal issued against the
petitioner has been quashed and set aside and the
appellant-respondents were directed to extend all
consequential benefit to the writ petitioner-respondent.
7. Briefly stated, the respondent-writ petitioner was
Circle Officer and was posted on various places. After
cadre division of the State of Bihar, the respondent- writ
petitioner was allocated Jharkhand cadre.
8. While he was posted at Panki and was performing
additional charge of Lesliganj for the period 2003, a
charge memo was issued on 21/10/2009 with regard to
20 separate charges of misconduct and subsequently a
departmental proceeding was initiated. Accordingly,
Inquiry officer was appointed and the IO on the basis of
comments given by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau
concluded the proceeding and held that eight charges
were found to be proved, and accepting the enquiry
report, the disciplinary authority passed an order by
which the petitioner was awarded the punishment of
dismissal.
9. The respondent- writ petitioner assailed the
impugned order of termination on amongst the other
grounds that there was non-examination of witnesses
and the documents were proved without any oral
evidence.
10. Learned writ court after hearing learned counsel for
the parties quashed the impugned order by holding that
2026:JHHC:4619-DB
an opinion or an internal enquiry cannot be basis to
punish a delinquent employee rather; the charges are to
be proved before the Inquiry officer, on the basis of some
evidence.
11. In Crux, the learned single judge quashed the
departmental proceeding on the ground that the
documents were not proved by oral witness. However,
liberty has been given to the appellant-respondents to
proceed afresh, if so advised.
12. For brevity, para 8 and 9 of the order impugned is
quoted here in below.
"8. In both the judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
non-examination of witnesses, where some documents are to be
proved, will result in violation of the principle of natural justice,
which will mean that no reasonable opportunity has been given to
the delinquent to defend his/her case. Thus the entire proceeding
and the enquiry stand vitiated.
9. Considering the aforesaid judgments, as the case in hand is
squarely covered by the law laid down, as admittedly none proved
the documents. I am inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, this
writ application is allowed. Consequently, the entire enquiry report
as well as the order of punishment contained in Memo No.
10530/Ranchi, dated 11.10.2017 (Annexure-6) is hereby quashed.
The respondents are directed to extend all the consequential
benefits to the petitioner immediately. The respondents, if so
wishes, may proceed afresh."
13. As a matter of fact, the law with regard to
examination of witness is now no more res integra. The
learned writ Court has rightly referred the case of Roop
Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others,1
and also the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others
versus Saroj Kumar Sinha,2.
14. As a matter of fact, recently also in the case of
Satyendra Kumar Singh Versus State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another3 the same view has been
reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to
importance of oral evidence as well as the role of Inquiry
1 (2009) 2 SCC 570
(2010) 2 SCC 772
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325
2026:JHHC:4619-DB
officer and also the effect of non-examination of witness
and proving the charge on the basis of documents only
and the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 13, 15 and
17 as under: -
"13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording
of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a
major punishment is mandatory. Reference in this regard may be
held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank9 and Nirmala J.
Jhala v. State of Gujarat.10
15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj
Kumar Sinha,12 wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-
parte inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the
evidence presented by the Department to find out whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are
proved. The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha13 are
as follows:--
"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."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record
the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested
the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999,
and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh
Negi15 and Nirmala J. Jhala16, we are of the firm view that the
inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to
charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated
and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever
was recorded by the department in support of the charges."
15. As aforesaid, the issue with regard to examination
of witness in order to prove the charge has been set at
2026:JHHC:4619-DB
rest right from the judgment of Roop Singh Negi (supra),
then in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) and further
in the case of Satyendra Kumar Singh (supra). Again, the
issue has been deliberated in details recently by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Lucknow Versus Ram Prakash
Singh4; wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has again
recapped the law.
16. For brevity para 13 to 16 is quoted herein below: -
"13. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, it was held that
an officer conducting an enquiry has a duty to arrive at findings in
respect of the charges upon taking into consideration the materials
brought on record by the parties. It has also been held therein that
any evidence collected during investigation by an investigating
officer against the accused by itself could not be treated to be
evidence in the disciplinary proceedings.
14. What follows from a conjoint reading of the above two decisions
is and what applies here is that, 'materials brought on record by
the parties' (to which consideration in the enquiry ought to be
confined) mean only such materials can be considered which are
brought on record in a manner known to law. Such materials can
then be considered legal evidence, which can be acted upon.
Though the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not strictly applicable to
departmental enquiries, which are not judicial proceedings,
nevertheless, the principles flowing therefrom can be applied in
specific cases. Evidence tendered by witnesses must be recorded in
the presence of the delinquent employee, he should be given
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and no document
should be relied on by the prosecution without giving copy thereof to
the delinquent - all these basic principles of fair play have their root
in such Act. In such light, the documents referred to in the list of
documents forming part of the annexures to the chargesheet, on
which the department seeks to rely in the enquiry, cannot be
treated as legal evidence worthy of forming the basis for a finding
of guilt if the contents of such documents are not spoken to by
persons competent to speak about them. A document does not prove
itself. In the enquiry, therefore, the contents of the relied-on
documents have to be proved by examining a witness having
knowledge of the contents of such document and who can depose
as regards its authenticity. In the present case, no such exercise
was undertaken by producing any witness.
15. We may further refer to the decision of this Court in State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha where disciplinary proceedings
were drawn up against the respondent, Saroj Kumar Sinha, under
the 1999 Rules itself with which we are concerned. Paragraphs 26
to 30 and 33 of the said decision being relevant are quoted below:
"26. The first inquiry report is vitiated also on the ground that
the inquiry officers failed to fix any date for the appearance of
the respondent to answer the charges. Rule 7(x) clearly
2025 SCC Online SC 891
2026:JHHC:4619-DB
provides as under:
'7. (x) Where the charged government servant does not appear
on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the
proceeding in spite of the service of the notice on him or
having knowledge of the date, the inquiry officer shall
proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the inquiry
officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in
the charge-sheet in absence of the charged government
servant.'
27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when
the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the
charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a
date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case
when the government servant despite notice of the date fixed
failed to appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the
inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent
on the inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses
mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the government servant
is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-
examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to
establish the charges the Department is required to produce
the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as
to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a
prosecutor as well as a judge.
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.
29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of
the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be
conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is
a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an
employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in
any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being
imposed on the employee.
30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the
government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise.
The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a
closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased.
The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to
ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to
be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that
a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which
may culminate in imposition of punishment including
dismissal/removal from service.
***
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
2026:JHHC:4619-DB
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."
(emphasis ours)
16. It appears that the appellant is yet to take lessons despite the
admonition in Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra). The same kind of
omissions and commissions that led to setting aside of the order of
punishment imposed being upheld by this Court were repeated in
the present case."
17. Thus, we see that Hon'ble Apex Court has
reprimanded and even gone to the extent in observing
that the authorities are yet to take lessons despite the
admonition in Saroj Kumar Sinha (Supra) and same kind
of omission and commission that led to setting aside the
order of punishment imposed being upheld by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, were repeated.
18. In the instant case also, as we have noted above,
that documents were proved without any oral evidence.
Therefore, as per the settled principle, the same
document cannot be said to be proved. As a matter of
fact, even in an ex-parte inquiry, the Inquiry officer has to
act as an Umpire and not as the representative of the
department. His function is to examine the evidence; even
in absence of the delinquent officer, he has to see as to
whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that
the charges are proved, and since in the instant case, no
oral evidence has been examined, the documents have
not been proved and could not have been taken into
consideration, and thus the Inquiry officer erroneously
concluded that the charges have been proved against the
writ petitioner.
19. We do not find any error in the order passed by the
learned single judge in the backdrop of the facts that the
documents were proved without any oral evidence and
2026:JHHC:4619-DB
the Inquiry officer has not acted as an independent
quasi-judicial authority; rather acted as a representative
of his superiors.
20. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
Pending I.As. if any, also stands disposed of. However,
there shall be no order to cost.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
February 17, 2026
Amardeep/
Uploaded
A.F.R
18.02.2026
