[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Damodar Valley Corporation Through Its ... vs Sukar Koeri on 20 February, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:5205-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.249 of 2025
---
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, having its registered office at DVC Towers, 6th Floor, VIP
Road, Kolkata, P.O.+P.S. and District Kolkata.
2. The Secretary, Damodar Valley Corporation, having its registered
office at DVC Towers, 6th Floor, VIP Road, Kolkata, P.O.+P.S. and
District Kolkata.
3. The Additional Secretary, Damodar Valley Corporation, having its
registered office at DVC Towers, 6th Floor, VIP Road, Kolkata,
P.O.+P.S. and District Kolkata.
4. Executive Director-cum-Appellate Authority, Damodar Valley
Corporation, having its registered office at DVC Towers, 6th Floor,
VIP Road, Kolkata, P.O.+P.S. and District Kolkata.
5. Director, Soil Conservation and HOP, Damodar Valley Corporation,
Soil Conservation Department, Hazaribagh, P.O.+ P.S. Sadar,
District-Hazaribagh.
6. Director R & L.A., Damodar Valley Corporation, Hazaribagh, P.O. +
P.S. Sadar, District-Hazaribagh.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Sukar Koeri, aged about 65 years, son of Late Nanhu Koeri, residing
at village Barki Ghamrai, P.O. Tilaiya Dam, P.S. Jaynagar, District-
Koderma, Jharkhand.
.... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellants : Mrs. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate
-----
Reserved on 12.02.2026 Pronounced on 20.02.2026
Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. :
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the
Order/Judgment dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge
of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3576 of 2019 allowing the writ petition filed
by the petitioner/respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the
petitioner) and quashing the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the
Additional Secretary-cum-disciplinary authority, Damodar Valley
Corporation vide No.F/AS/PS/ Conf./F-03/30 whereby the petitioner was
2026:JHHC:5205-DB
imposed punishment of removal from the services of the corporation
with immediate effect as well as the order dated 18.06.2019 bearing
No. HR/Disc. & Comp/Complaints & DP 'C' & 'D'/48/913 passed by the
Executive Director (HR)-cum-Appellate Authority, Damodar Valley
Corporation whereby the punishment of removal of the petitioner from
service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, was affirmed.
2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is as
follows: -
(i) The petitioner was initially appointed as casual worker in Soil
Conservation Department of Damodar Valley Corporation at
Hazaribagh on 01.10.1974 and worked there on daily wages
from 01.10.1974 to 08.01.1994.
(ii) The petitioner along with others filed writ petition being
C.W.J.C No. 1907 of 1992(R) on 03.07.1992 seeking their
regularisation and pursuant to the order dated 22.07.1993
passed in the said writ petition, the petitioner was regularized
on 10.01.1994. Moreover, in all the documents including PAN
Card, Voter List, Adhaar Card, etc., his name was recorded as
Sukar Koeri S/o Late Nanhu Koeri.
(iii) At the fag end of service of the petitioner, a complaint was
filed by one Gangadhar Mahto, so called son of Late Sukar
Koeri (hereinafter referred as the complainant) and on the
basis of the said complaint, the petitioner was served a memo
of charge dated 11.05.2017 alleging that his actual name was
Budhan Mahto and he had secured employment in DVC by
impersonating himself as his elder brother namely Sukar Koeri
2026:JHHC:5205-DB
who was working in Soil Conservation Department of DVC as
casual worker, however, he had already died on 04.07.1979.
(iv) Thereafter, the Director, Rehabilitation & Land Acquisition
Department (DRLA), DVC, Hazaribag was appointed as
enquiry officer who submitted the enquiry report stating that
the writ petitioner had impersonated himself as Sukar Koeri
whereas his actual name was Budhan Mahto and had
continued in the service of DVC on the assumed name. Hence,
he derived monitory benefit as wages/salary along with other
consequential benefits by way of impersonation, forgery and
cheating.
(v) A copy of the enquiry report was communicated to the writ
petitioner which was received by him on 15.11.2018 in
response to which he submitted representation dated
19.11.2018 objecting the findings of the enquiry report.
(vi) Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide order dated
07.12.2018 imposed punishment of removal from service upon
the petitioner with immediate effect observing that all charges
levelled against him were proved beyond reasonable doubt
which were grave in nature involving impersonation,
falsification, forgery and mis-appropriation of
government/corporation's fund.
(vii)The petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority
on 08.01.2019, however, the same was also dismissed vide
order dated 18.06.2019 affirming the order passed by the
disciplinary authority.
2026:JHHC:5205-DB
3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3576
of 2019 challenging the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the
disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by
the appellate authority.
4. The said writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge
vide impugned order dated 01.10.2024 quashing and setting aside the
orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate
authority. It has been observed in the said order that since the
petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, no order of
reinstatement can be passed, however, he has been held entitled for all
consequential benefits as well as 25% of the back wages from the date
of termination till the date of his actual superannuation.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that
the learned single judge has failed to take into consideration that the
exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is very limited, except in such case where the
enquiry report is found completely perverse. On the contrary, if it is
established that the finding is based on some legal evidence by due
compliance of natural justice, the power of judicial review is not to be
exercised by the High Court.
6. It is also submitted that in the present case, the learned Single Judge
has failed to appreciate that the petitioner has been held guilty of the
charges levelled against him based on the documents produced by the
complainant who is the nephew of the petitioner and only after a full-
fledged departmental proceeding as well on complying the principles of
natural justice, the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment upon
2026:JHHC:5205-DB
him. Moreover, the appellate authority has also passed the reasoned
order dated 18.06.2019 affirming the order of the disciplinary authority.
7. It is further contended that though the complainant was not examined
during the enquiry, all the documents including the copy of the
allegations levelled by the complainant were served to the petitioner
which would clearly suggest that the enquiry officer had extended all
possible opportunities to the petitioner to represent his case. Moreover,
there was no requirement of appearance of complainant during the
disciplinary proceeding since the enquiry was primarily about the actual
identity of the petitioner.
8. It is argued that though the claim of the petitioner is that the order of
punishment of removal from service was passed against him without
complying the principles of natural justice, however the record would
suggest that the petitioner had actively participated in the enquiry
proceeding and had responded to the questions asked from him by the
enquiry officer. Moreover, he had also examined the documents filed by
the complainant.
9. It is also contended that the petitioner cannot claim a right of service
or appointment or continuity of service particularly when it is
established that he deliberately withheld material information relating
to his antecedents or identity. Any relaxation given to him would run
against the settled procedure established under Office Memorandum
dated 19.05.1993 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training,
Government of India in respect of action to be taken for misconduct
committed by the government servants read with Rule 11 of the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
2026:JHHC:5205-DB
which mandates that when a government servant furnishes false
information to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service
and should be dismissed after conducting an inquiry.
10. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order dated 01.10.2024, are not applicable in the facts and
circumstance of the present case since the petitioner was given due
opportunity to counter the veracity of the documents submitted by the
complainant before the department.
11. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Mysore & Others Vs. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur
reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 105 has held that quasi-judicial
bodies are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial in the
Courts nor they are bound by the strict rules of evidence.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants puts further reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Nand
Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (1978) 3
SCC 366 wherein it has been held that the minimum requirement of
the rules of natural justice is that the tribunal should arrive at its
conclusion on the basis of some evidence i.e., evidential material which
points towards the guilt of the delinquent with some degree of
certainty in respect of the charge levelled against him. Suspicion cannot
be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquiries.
13. It has further been held that if the disciplinary inquiry has been
conducted fairly without bias or predilection in accordance with the
relevant disciplinary rules and the Constitutional provisions, the order
2026:JHHC:5205-DB
passed by such authority should not be interfered with in the
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, merely on the
ground that it was based on evidence which would be insufficient for
conviction of the delinquent on the same charge at a criminal trial.
14. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that the complainant, who had made the
allegation of impersonation against the petitioner, based on which, the
departmental proceeding was initiated against him, was not examined
during the inquiry and on this score alone the order of punishment of
the petitioner's removal from service was liable to be vitiated. As such,
the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by
the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2024 and the same needs no
interference of this court.
15. In support of the aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the
petitioner puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National
Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570.
16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
17. On perusal of the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the
learned Single judge, it would appear that the writ petition filed by the
petitioner has been allowed observing that the complainant had never
turned up during the entire departmental proceeding to substantiate
his complaint against the petitioner to the effect that he had taken
service in DVC by impersonating himself as Sukar Koeri who was said
to be his elder brother. His non-appearance has been held as a serious
2026:JHHC:5205-DB
defect in the departmental proceeding vitiating the entire charge.
18. In the case of Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in
(1999) 8 SCC 582, the sole ground urged by the appellant-Hardwari
Lal was non-observance of the principles of natural justice in not
examining the complainant and a witness, namely, Jagdish Ram during
the departmental proceeding. Their Lordships held that examination of
these two witnesses would have revealed as to whether the complaint
made by Virender Singh was correct or not and to establish that he was
the best person to speak to its veracity. So also, Jagdish Ram, who had
accompanied the appellant to the hospital for medical examination,
would have been an important witness to prove the state or the
condition of the appellant. Finally, Their Lordships quashed the order of
dismissal of the appellant by observing that the Tribunal and the High
Court were not justified in forming opinion that non-examination of
these two persons was not of material importance.
19. The learned Single Judge has further held that since the petitioner had
already retired from service and the relationship of employee and
employer had already ceased, no direction could be passed to initiate a
fresh departmental proceeding. The learned Single Judge finally held
the petitioner entitled for all consequential benefits as well as for 25%
of the back wages from the date of termination till the date of his
actual superannuation.
20. Before this court, the appellants have not disputed the finding of fact
arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the complainant was not
examined during the departmental proceeding.
21. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (Supra.), the fact was that the
2026:JHHC:5205-DB
management had only tendered the documents on which it had relied
upon without examining the relevant witnesses to prove the said
documents. Their Lordships have held that a departmental proceeding
is a quasi-judicial proceeding and 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
inquiry by the enquiry officer against the delinquent by itself cannot be
treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding.
22. One of the basic requirements of principles of natural justice is that all
the departmental witnesses in the departmental proceeding must be
examined in presence of the delinquent so as to afford him ample
opportunity to cross examine the said witnesses so as to take out
contradiction (if any) from their statements as well as from the
documents produced by them. If the management relies upon the
documents produced by the complainant without examining him during
the inquiry, then the delinquent is deprived of an opportunity to
controvert the content of the documents so produced by the
complainant causing serious prejudice to him. Thus, non-examination
of the complainant during the departmental proceeding would vitiate
the entire proceeding on the ground of violation of the principles of
natural justice.
23. In the present case, since the complainant had alleged against the
petitioner that he got himself engaged in the service of DVC by
impersonating as Sukar Koeri who was said to be his elder brother, the
2026:JHHC:5205-DB
burden was upon the management to prove the said allegation against
the petitioner and in order to discharge the said burden, the
management was duty bound to produce the complainant during the
enquiry so as to prove all the documents relied upon by the
management, however by not producing the complainant, the
management inflicted serious prejudice against the petitioner by
depriving him of the opportunity to controvert the veracity of the
complaint.
24. Moreover, the petitioner had submitted various documents i.e., PAN
Card, Voter Card, Adhaar Card etc. in support of his actual identity.
Moreover, he was regularized in the service by the management of DVC
only after getting satisfied that he was Sukar Koeri. It is also relevant to
note that no objection was raised from any corner during his entire
service career and only at the fag end of his service, he was imposed
punishment of removal from service on the allegation of impersonation
levelled against him by the complainant namely Gangadhar Mahto who
was said to be the nephew of the petitioner by committing serious
procedural irregularity in the departmental proceeding as highlighted
hereinabove.
25. For the reasons as aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the
impugned order dated 01.10.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3576 of 2019.
26. Before parting with the case, it would be appropriate to mention here
that the observation made by this court in the present order as well as
by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 01.10.2024 passed in
W.P.(S) No.3576 of 2019, may not be inferred as any finding of fact
regarding the identity of the petitioner, rather the same is confined to
2026:JHHC:5205-DB
the legal infirmity found in the departmental proceeding conducted by
the enquiry officer. Therefore, the present order as well as the order of
the learned Single Judge shall not be construed as a proof of the
petitioner's identity.
27. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
28. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
20th February, 2026
Rohit/A.F.R.
Uploaded on 20th February, 2026
