Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs Kiran Singh Wife Of Late Manoj Prasad
2026 Latest Caselaw 1241 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs Kiran Singh Wife Of Late Manoj Prasad on 17 February, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                           2026:JHHC:4685-DB

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           L.P.A No. 392 of 2025
1.    Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, through its Managing
Director, having its office at Engineering Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2.    General Manager (Personnel)-cum-General Administration,
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, having its office at Engineering
Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3.    Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Managing
Director, having its office at Engineering Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4.     Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, having
its office at Engineering Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5.    Deputy General Manager, Transmission, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran
Nigam Limited, having its office at Engineering Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O.
and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.    ... ... Appellant(s)
                              Versus
Kiran Singh wife of Late Manoj Prasad, resident of Devi Darshan Road,
near Arjun Niwas, BITT, Polytechnic College, P.O. Neori, P.S. Sadar,
District Ranchi.                               ... ... Respondent(s)

CORAM:          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Appellant(s)            : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s)           : Ms. Divya, Advocate
                              --------
                           JUDGMENT

CAV on 05/02/2026                                  Pronounced on 17/02/2026
Per Deepak Roshan, J.

1. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellants for condonation of delay of 119 days.

2. Looking to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, we condone the delay and dispose of I.A No. 9484 of 2025.

3. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated

2026:JHHC:4685-DB

17.12.2024 passed by the learned writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 1697 of 2022, whereby the learned writ Court has allowed the prayer of the respondent-writ petitioner by quashing the impugned Resolution No.1461 dated 23.08.2017 issued vide Memo No. 1462 dated 23.08.2017 whereby husband of the respondent-writ petitioner was dismissed from service and also the order dated 01.02.2022 issued vide Memo No. 128 whereby the appeal preferred by the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner against the order of dismissal was rejected.

4. The learned writ Court has further held that the respondent-writ petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits including death-cum-retiral benefits in accordance with law and the appellants herein were directed to complete the entire exercise for release of amount in favour of the respondent- writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks.

5. Sans detail, respondent-writ petitioner is the wife of late Manoj Prasad who was working as Junior Electrical Engineer and died on 13.10.2017. While husband of the respondent-writ petitioner was posted as Junior Electrical Engineer, Lohardaga, a raid was conducted on 14.03.2013 in relation to theft of electricity for which her husband lodged an FIR against several persons including one Rajendra Sahu.

6. The case of the respondent-writ petitioner is that pursuant to institution of a FIR by the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner, the said Rajendra Sahu deposited the amount of fine and thereafter the case was dropped after a compromise arrived at Lok Adalat. However, as a revenge, the son of the said Rajendra Sahu made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi on 04.05.2013 with an allegation that the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner was demanding a sum of Rs. 2000/- as bribe for providing electric connection on his shop.

7. On the basis of said complaint, FIR was lodged and a raid was conducted and the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner was arrested and after investigation, the Vigilance Bureau submitted the charge-sheet against the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner for the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, husband of the respondent-writ petitioner preferred a regular bail and he was released on bail.

8. Further fact reveals that pursuant to release of husband of the

2026:JHHC:4685-DB

respondent-writ petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated by issuing a memo of charge which was served upon the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner on 19.12.2013 making an allegation that the Vigilance Bureau had arrested him while accepting Rs. 2000/- as bribe money. An enquiry officer was also appointed and in the departmental proceeding, the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner was imposed punishment of dismissal from service.

Thereafter, the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner preferred an appeal. During the pendency of appeal, the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner died on 13.10.2017 and when no decision was taken on appeal, the respondent-writ petitioner filed a writ application being W.P.(S) No 1486 of 2018.

During pendency of the writ petition, the appeal preferred by the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner was rejected and the same was also assailed by amending the prayer pursuant to order of this Court and finally the said writ application was allowed in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner by quashing the appellate order and the case was remitted to the appellate authority to pass a reasoned order considering objection in memo of appeal. Thereafter, the reasoned order was passed and the order of punishment of dismissal was sustained.

9. A short issue has been raised by the respondent-writ petitioner before the writ Court that in a regular departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer has come to a conclusion holding the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner guilty of charges which is based on no evidence as the entire documents which has been relied upon, is of the criminal proceeding and the same was not proved by any oral witness. Accordingly, the entire proceeding is vitiated due to procedural irregularity.

10. The case of the appellants herein before the writ Court was that since the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner was caught red handed, the statement of the officers during investigation formed part of the regular departmental proceeding and there was no independent witness for those statements which were notified for considering the husband of the respondent- writ petitioner to be guilty of charges and relying upon this contention, learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that the learned writ Court should have looked into this aspect that the delinquent employee was caught red handed by

2026:JHHC:4685-DB

the Vigilance Department and he was also arrested and therefore the documents which were all relating to the criminal case need not to be proved.

11. The learned writ Court after hearing both the parties has rejected the contention of the appellants herein by holding that it was a case of no evidence as neither any witness has been examined, nor the opportunity of cross- examination was given to the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner and the entire conclusion of the enquiry report is based on criminal investigation.

12. The issue with regard to examination of oral witness in order to prove the charges has been dealt repeatedly by the Hon'ble Apex Court right from the case of "Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank" 1, and then in the case of "State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha" 2. After the aforesaid celebrated judgments of "Roop Singh Negi" (supra) and "Saroj Kumar Sinha"

(supra), in the year 2024 same issue came before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr." 3 where the ratio has been reiterated to the effect that a departmental proceeding is a quasi-

judicial proceeding and the enquiry officer being a quasi-judicial officer has to act like an umpire. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the material brought on record by the parties.

13. As a matter of fact, in "Roop Singh Negi" (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that "... 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 departmental proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents...".

Thus, we see that the facts/issue in the instant case are almost same and similar with that of the case of "Roop Singh Negi" (supra) and in the said case the law was laid down.

14. As a matter of fact, recently in the case of "State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Pachayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh"4 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"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

(2009) 2 SCC 570

(2010) 2 SCC 772

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325

2025 SCC OnLine SC 891

2026:JHHC:4685-DB 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 Sinha17 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 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 prese 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

2026:JHHC:4685-DB 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 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)

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."

Emphasis Supplied

15. After going through the aforesaid judgment, we are having no hesitation in holding that the oral witness is sine qua non to prove the documents and the charges levelled against the delinquent employee which was absent in the instant proceeding. The purported documents/evidence collected during investigation against the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding when the same was not proved by any oral witness.

16. Having regard to the aforesaid settled proposition of law, we are having no hesitation in holding that the learned writ Court has rightly quashed the impugned order of dismissal of the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner from service as well as the appellate order and directed the appellants herein to give all consequential benefit to the present respondent-writ petitioner including

2026:JHHC:4685-DB

death-cum-retiral benefits.

17. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that normally in the cases of procedural irregularities, the matters are being remitted to the concerned authorities for fresh consideration, however, in the instant case, we see that the delinquent employee has died long before and the writ was pursued by his wife, as such we also hold that this is not a case of remand to the authorities.

18. Consequently, the appellants herein are directed to complete the entire exercise for release of all monetary benefits in favour of the respondent- writ petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.

19. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, I.A No. 11145 of 2025 for stay does not survive, hence same is also dismissed; however, there shall be no order as to cost.

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 17/02/2026 Amit A.F.R Uploaded on 18/02/2026