[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Bhimlal Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:2620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 540 of 2026
------
Bhimlal Prasad, aged about 52 years, Son of Late Ramlal Prasad
Mehta, resident of Babugaon, Near Devi Mandap Street, Korra, PO
& PS: Korra, District-Hazaribag. ... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag, PO
& PS: Hazaribag, District-Hazaribag.
3. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Educational
Development Committee, Hazaribag, PO & PS- Hazaribag,
District-Hazaribag.
4. District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribag, PO & PS-
Hazaribag, District-Hazaribag. ... ... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to GP-III
------
nd
02/ 02 February, 2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 02.07.2024
contained in Memo No.1551 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition)
whereby the punishment of withholding of one increment without
a cumulative effect has been passed. Further, it was ordered that
during the suspension period, he will not get his salary. He also
challenged the Appellate Order dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure-8 to
the writ petition) passed in Service Appeal No.35 of 2024.
3. It is not necessary to call for counter-affidavit in this
case as the impugned order speaks for itself and no affidavit can
supplement the reasons thereof as this is a writ application praying
for certiorari.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was the In-charge
Headmaster. Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner
alleging irregularity in preparation and disbursement of mid-day
meal. After receiving the said charge-sheet, the petitioner gave a
detailed reply annexing documents in support of his defense. The
respondents thereafter, passed the impugned order dated
02.07.2024 (Annexure-7) by which the punishment was inflicted.
The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed.
2026:JHHC:2620
5. I have gone through the impugned order dated
02.07.2024 contained in Memo No.1551, whereby the petitioner
has been punished. Order is a 04-line order, only stating that in
the light of order on the file by Commissioner-cum-Chairman
District Education Establishment Committee, the punishment is
imposed upon the petitioner. The District Superintendent of
Education has not delt with the reply given by the petitioner, in his
defence.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is a permanent employee of
the State. The Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 provides for initiation of a
departmental proceeding before punishment.
7. Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules, prescribed the
punishment which can be imposed. The punishments are divided
in two categories, major penalties and minor penalties.
Withholding of increment without cumulative effect is a minor
penalty. The procedure for imposing minor penalty has been laid
down in Rule 19. It is necessary to quote the Rule 19:-
"19. Procedure for imposing minor penalties :- (1)
Subject to the provisions of sub rule (3) of rule 18, no order
imposing on a Government Servant any of the penalties
specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 14 shall be made except
after -
a) informing the Government Servant in writing of the
proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be
taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such
representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;
b) considering the representation, if any, submitted by
the Government Servant under clause (a);
c) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct
or misbehaviour."
8. From perusal of Clause of 19(b) & 19(c) of the Rules
2016, it is clear that before imposing minor penalties upon an
employee, the authority must consider the representation
submitted by the Government servant and the Disciplinary
Authority must record a finding on each of the imputation of the
misconduct or misbehavior.
9. The impugned order suggests that neither the reply of
the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice has been dealt by the
2026:JHHC:2620
Disciplinary Authority, nor there is finding on each of the
imputation. Non-compliance of the mandate of 19(b) & (c) of the
aforesaid Rules, 2016 makes the punishment order bad in law.
10. It is settled principle that when law provides to do an
act in a particular manner, the same has to be done in exactly the
manner prescribed as per the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of "Shri Khereshwar Mahadev VA Dauji Maharaj
Samiti vs. State of U.P.", reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
774, has held as under:-
15. Apart from that it is a settled law that when a law
requires a particular thing to be done in a particular
manner, it has to be done in that manner alone or not at
all. When a legal proceeding to be filed by the Gram
Sabha is to be filed only on the resolution of the Gram
Sabha, the petition at the instance of Respondent No.
5/Manju Devi, without there being a resolution of the
Gram Sabha was not tenable at the instance of the Gram
Sabha..........."
11. Thus, the impugned order of punishment dated
02.07.2024, contained in Memo No.1551 is set aside and
consequently, the Appellate Order dated 07.08.2025 passed in
Service Appeal No. 35 of 2024 is also set aside. The matter is
remanded to the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribag
to pass a fresh detailed reasoned order considering the each of the
imputation made against the petitioner and also dealing with the
reply of the petitioner to Show Cause Notice.
12. The process should be concluded within a period of 10
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition
stands allowed.
14. Pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
02.02.2026
S.K.D., cp2
A.F.R.
Uploaded on 05.02.2026
