[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Amaresh Bhattacharya vs The General Manager on 12 January, 2026

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                    2026:JHHC:810




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P.(S) No.929 of 2023
                                     ------
   Amaresh Bhattacharya, son of Late Byomkesh Bhattacharya,
   resident of Village & P.O. Bena, P.S. & District Jamtara.
                                                         ... ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
   1. The General Manager, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,
        having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. &
        P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District Ranchi.
   2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Power Supply Area,
        Ranchi, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, having its office at
        Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town
        and District Ranchi.
   3. The Deputy General Manager, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
        Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa,
        P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District Ranchi.
                                                      ... ... Respondents
                                     ------
               CORAM        : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG Ms. Shambhavi Sinha, Advocate Ms. Aditi Raj, Advocate

------

18/ 12.01.2026

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for

the following reliefs:-

(i) To quash and set aside the order, contained in office order no.256 dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure-7), issued under the pen and signature of Deputy General Manager (respondent No.3), whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been made to retire from service on 31.03.2014.

(ii) To also quash and set aside the order contained in office order no.278 dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure-8), issued under the pen and signature of Deputy General Manager (Respondent no.3) whereby and whereunder full pension and gratuity of the petitioner have been withheld.

(iii) To direct the respondents to pay all the pension-cum-retirement benefits including

2026:JHHC:810

gratuity and all other benefits to the petitioner as he retired on 30.09.2021 from the post of Messenger.

(iv) During the pendency of this writ application, the operation, execution and implementation of office orders dated 14.03.2022 and 25.03.2022 may kindly be stayed.

(v) For any other appropriate relief / reliefs, to which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner.

(vi) To quash and set aside the order contained in Memo No.896 dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure-

12) passed by Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) whereby the full pension and gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld."

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and

learned counsel representing the respondents.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:-

3.1. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground

as Messenger on 26.11.1984 in Central Electricity Supply Division,

Patna. After the bifurcation he was allocated to the State of

Jharkhand.

3.2. On the complaint of his wife Smt. Jyotsna Bhattacharya

on 20.06.2017 to the General Manager (HR), he was proceeded

departmentally by framing a Memo of Charge vide Office Order No.

831 dated 19.08.2020 against him. The two charges which were

levelled against the petitioner are as follows:-

(i) The date of birth entered in the service book of the petitioner is 19.09.1961 which is on the basis of Matriculation Certificate but a complaint has been received that actual date of birth is 01.04.1954.

(ii) The petitioner married second wife in spite of the fact that

2026:JHHC:810

he was already married and his first wife is still alive.

3.3. The petitioner submitted reply on 18.11.2020 denying the

charges levelled against him.

3.4. A departmental enquiry was conducted and enquiry

report was submitted on 28.09.2021 by the Enquiry Officer.

3.5. The petitioner has been made to retire w.e.f 31.03.2014

vide office order no.256 dated 14.03.2022 considering his date of

birth as 1.04.1954 and vide order contained in office order no.278

dated 25.03.2022 a second show cause notice issued annexing

enquiry report to the petitioner seeking his reply for the proposed

punishment of withholding full pension and gratuity. Thereafter again

petitioner has been issued reminder notices dated 08.06.2022 and

dated 28.09.2022 asking the petitioner to submit reply, to which the

petitioner submitted reply on 19.10.2022.

3.6. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam

Limited, Ranchi after considering the reply of the petition has passed

order of withholding the full gratuity and pension vide Memo No.896

dated 08.05.2023. Thus, being aggrieved of the aforesaid orders

the petitioner filed this writ petition.

4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel representing the

petitioner submitted that when charge no.1 was not proved by the

Enquiry Officer, the impugned orders cannot be passed on the basis

of the charge no.1 without differing with the findings of the Enquiry

Officer on charge no.1. He further submitted that without any prove

the petitioner should not be retired on 31.03.2014 on the basis of

date of birth as 1.04.1954. He further submitted that on the basis of

2026:JHHC:810

the findings of the Enquiry Report the punishment of forfeiture of full

pension and gratuity could not be imposed upon the petitioner, which

is passed in complete violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the

Constitution of India. He thus contended that the petitioner is

entitled for payment of entire pension cum retirement benefit

including gratuity on account of his retirement on 30.09.2021.

5. Per contra the learned counsel representing the

respondents submitted that on the basis of the complaint of the wife

of the petitioner a departmental proceeding against the petition was

initiated. After a proper departmental enquiry, the allegation of

bigamy is found proved. He further submitted that in his reply dated

19.10.2022, the petitioner accepted second marriage and mentioned

the prevailing customs regarding his divorce from his first wife, Mrs.

Jyotsna Bhattacharya, but no legal documentary evidence, such as

a decree from a competent court, was submitted. He further

submitted that with regards to the charge of manipulation relating

to the "Date of Birth", as per the recommendations of the enquiry

officer, correspondence was made with the concerned school. An

information was received from the Government +2 High School,

Nala, Jamtara, and the admit card issued by the Bihar School

Examination Board, Patna, clearly show that Mr. Amaresh

Bhattacharya (the petitioner) appeared for the matriculation

examination in 1973 with the date of birth 1.04.1954, and again, the

admit card and certificate number 86C0299602 issued by the Bihar

School Examination Board, Patna, confirm that he appeared for the

matriculation examination in 1986 with a different date of birth,

2026:JHHC:810

19.09.1961. Thus, the petitioner has been made to retire w.e.f

31.03.2014 vide office order no.256 dated 14.03.2022 considering

his date of birth as 1.04.1954. He further submitted that he is rightly

been imposed with punishment of forfeiture of full pension and

gratuity.

6. After hearing learned counsel representing the parties

and perusing the records, it transpires that on the basis of the

complaint dated 20.06.2017 of the wife of the petitioner a

departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated. After a

proper departmental enquiry, the allegation of bigamy is found

proved. Further, the petitioner admitted in his reply to second show

cause the fact of second marriage. Further, with regard to the

allegation of different date of birth of the petitioner the enquiry

officer, made certain recommendations to enquire into the matter.

Pursuant to the aforesaid recommendations, correspondence was

made with the first joining officer of the petitioner to get the

documents submitted at the time of first joining and simultaneously

correspondence was made with BSEB, Patna and the concerned

School.

6.1. An information was received from the Government +2

High School, Nala, Jamtara, and the admit card issued by the Bihar

School Examination Board, Patna, clearly shows that the petitioner

appeared for the matriculation examination in 1973 with a date of

birth of 01.04.1954 and he again appeared for the matriculation

examination in 1986 with a different date of birth, 19.09.1961. Thus,

order passed by the respondent regarding his date of retirement

2026:JHHC:810

w.e.f 31.03.2014 vide office order no.256 dated 14.03.2022

considering his date of birth as 1.04.1954 does not warrant any

interference.

6.2. It is well settled that while dealing with the cases of

departmental proceeding, the scope of the High Court in exercise of

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very

limited and it cannot act as appellate authority. It is also well settled

that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction should also not interfere

with the punishment, unless it appears to be shockingly

disproportionate to the proved charges [refer, "Union of India

versus P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, at

paragraphs 12 and 13"].

7. Considering the charges levelled against the petitioner

which was proved in a departmental proceeding, in my opinion, the

quantum of punishment "forfeiture of full pension and gratuity" does

not commensurate with the proved charge and is shockingly

disproportionate as according to me withholding of entire pension

and gratuity is too harsh. It is well settled that the Courts cannot

assume the function of disciplinary authorities and decide the

quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this

function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent

authority.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow

Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Rajendra Singh, reported in (2013)

12 SCC 372, while observing that the judicial review of the quantum

of punishment is available with a very limited scope has held as

2026:JHHC:810

under:-

"19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.

19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court."

9. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments

and observation made hereinabove the impugned order being Memo

No.896 dated 08.05.2023 only to the extent of punishment of

forfeiture of full pension and gratuity, is hereby set aside. The matter

is remanded to the disciplinary authority to take a fresh decision on

the quantum of punishment within six weeks from the date of receipt

of copy of this order after giving one opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

10. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands

disposed of.

11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands

disposed of.