[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Shyam Nath Dube Son Of Late Rameshwar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 15 January, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:945
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2076 of 2021
----
Shyam Nath Dube son of Late Rameshwar Dube, resident of Flat No.301,
Block-8, Sector I, Khelgaon, PO Hotwar, PS Khelgaon, Town and District
Ranchi.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary / Principal Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, having Office at Nepal
House, Doranda, PO PS Doranda, Town and District Ranchi.
2. Deputy Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having Office at Nepal House, Doranda, PO PS
Doranda, Town & District Ranchi.
3. Under Secretary to Government, Water Resource Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having Office at Nepal House, Doranda, PO PS
Doranda, Town and District Ranchi.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, Advocate
Ms. Akansha Priya, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG
----
ORDER
RESERVED ON 06.01.2026 PRONOUNCED ON 15.01.2026
Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs: -
(i) To quash and set aside the order contained in Memo
No.3762 dated 21.07.2015 (Annexure 8) issued under
the pen and signature of respondent No.2, whereby
and whereunder, an order for deduction of 10% from
the pension of the petitioner has been passed for an
indefinite period, after retirement of the petitioner on
30.06.2013;
(ii) To also quash and set aside the appellate order
contained in Memo No.939 dated 18.02.2021
(Annexure 11), communicated by the respondent No.2,
whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the
petitioner has been rejected;
(iii) To quash and set aside the entire departmental
proceeding initiated against the petitioner including the
memo of charge dated 26.03.2014 (forwarded to the
2026:JHHC:945
petitioner by resolution contained in Memo No.1505
dated 25.06.2014) and the enquiry report dated
24.12.2014 (as forwarded by letter dated 13.04.2015);
(iv) To also direct the respondents to pay all pensionary
benefits including gratuity, leave encashment,
commutation of pension to the petitioner, in view of
retirement of the petitioner on 30.06.2013 from the
post of Assistant Engineer, Master Planning,
Investigation and Hydrology, Circle No.I, Ranchi;
(v) To also direct the respondents to grant 3rd MACP to
the petitioner and accordingly pay the difference of
salary thereof, as also fix the pensionary benefits of
the petitioner after grant of 3rd MACP and pay the
same accordingly;
(vi) During the pendency of the writ petition, the impugned
order contained in Memo No.3762 dated 21.07.2015
(Annexure 8) and appellate order contained in Memo
No.939 dated 18.02.2021 (Annexure 11) may kindly be
stayed;
(vii) 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;
(viii) To quash and set aside the order contained in Memo
No. 3982 dated 07.08.2025 issued under the pen and
signature of respondent No.3 whereby and
whereunder the Leave Encashment and Gratuity of the
petitioner have been withheld / adjusted.
2. Brief facts of the case is that a First Information Report being
Manika Police Station Case No.23 of 2010 was lodged against the petitioner
and 7 others under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code. Pursuant to the First Information Report, investigation was
conducted. The Executive Engineer, by letter No.640 dated 14.08.2010
directed that the petitioner was not to discharge his duties in view of the First
Information Report and authorised the Assistant Engineer, Chandwa to
perform his functions. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from the post of
Assistant Engineer on 30.06.2013. After retirement, a memo of charge was
2026:JHHC:945
issued to the petitioner on 26.03.2014 which was later formalized by
Resolution contained in memo No.1505 dated 25.06.2014. The petitioner
submitted his reply denying the charges. The petitioner was issued a second
show cause and he replied to the same on 06.05.2015. Despite the petitioners
reply, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of punishment vide memo
No.3762 dated 21.07.2015 directing deduction of 10% of pension for life. The
petitioner preferred an appeal on 19.08.2015, but the same remained
undecided, compelling the petitioner to file W.P.(S) No.3640 of 2016, which
was disposed with a direction to decide the appeal. However, the appeal was
rejected on 18.02.2021. Thus, the petitioner has moved before this Court in
this Writ Petition challenging the actions and orders passed by the
respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no witness was
examined and no document was proved as per law by the respondents in the
proceeding before the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel submitted that the
Enquiry Officer held Charge Nos.1, 3 and 4 as proved and returned the finding
on Charge Nos. 2 and 5. Replies submitted by the petitioner was not
considered by the concerned authority. Learned counsel contended that no
definite charge was framed against the petitioner. He further submitted that
the petitioner having served for 34 and half years, has not been paid his
gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension for no reason at all.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was granted 2 ACPs, but the 3rd
MACP, which fell due in the month of August 2009, has not been sanctioned.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
contention of the petitioner that he has worked to the satisfaction of the
authorities is denied and disputed. Learned counsel submitted that the
petitioner has been charged with 5 (five) allegations pertaining to illegal
absence, concealment of facts in relation to lodging of First Information Report
against him and fraudulently receiving salary for the period of absence, giving
false undertaking and disobedience of orders of higher officials. Learned
counsel contended that the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer held the
charges 1 to 4 against the petitioner as proved. Learned counsel further
contended that the petitioner is alleged to have fraudulently withdrawn amount
of Rs.21,45,422/- as salary for the period from June 2010 till June 2012. So
far as initiation of Departmental Proceeding is concerned, it has been
submitted that the same was under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension
Rules, which vests power upon the authorities to initiate proceeding after
2026:JHHC:945
retirement. He submitted that the charges were proved by documents, which
were annexed with the chargesheet, which the petitioner had not specifically
denied. Thereby, the documents are admitted by the petitioner, and thus has
been proved. It is his contention that when charge is proved by document,
there is no necessity to adduce any oral evidence as held by this Court in
L.P.A. No.404 of 2021 [State of Jharkhand & Others versus Awadhesh
Prasad Mehta].
5. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through
the records, I find that after superannuation of the petitioner, petitioner was
proceeded departmentally. There is no bar in proceeding against the
employee after superannuation in terms of Section 43(b) of the Jharkhand
Pension Rules. Section 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules is quoted
herein for better appreciation :-
"43 (b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the
right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it,
whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of
ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in
departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave
misconduct; or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by
misconduct or negligence, during his service including service
rendered on re-employment after retirement:
Provided that -
(a) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while
the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or
during re-employment;
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the
State Government
(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not
more than four years before the institution of such
proceedings; and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such place
or places as the State Government may direct and in
accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings
on which an order of dismissal from service may be made;
(b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the
Government servant was on duty either before retirement or
during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance
with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a); and
(c) the Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be
consulted before final orders are passed."
6. From the aforesaid provision of law, it is quite clear that even after
superannuation, for the purpose of withholding pension or curtailing the same,
a proceeding can be initiated. Thus, the respondents were well within their
jurisdiction to initiate the Proceeding against the petitioner.
7. The next question, which falls for consideration is whether it is
necessary to adduce oral evidence if the charges, according to the employer,
are proved by documentary evidence and those documents, which were relied
upon, were supplied to the petitioner.
2026:JHHC:945
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies upon the
judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.404 of 2021
(supra), in support of his contention. I have gone through the aforesaid
judgment. The Letters Patent Court, while delivering the judgment, had
considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop
Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2
SCC 570. After considering the same, the Division Bench distinguished Roop
Singh Negi (supra) in paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment, wherein the
Division Bench held that examination of any witness in Departmental
Proceeding is not a mandatory requirement to prove the charges and the
punishment order can rest itself on documents provided the delinquent
government employee does not dispute the same.
9. In a Departmental Proceeding, the Enquiry Officer is bound to
inquire into the charges leveled against the delinquent employee to arrive at
an independent conclusion as to whether charge leveled against the
delinquent employee is proved or not. An Enquiry 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. versus
Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 has held as under: -
"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the
position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be
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."
Further, in the case of Nagar Panchayat Umari versus Shyam
Charan Chaturvedi reported in (2023) 18 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under: -
"8. A departmental proceeding against a delinquent is a serious
matter as it has its repercussions which can be far-reaching. It is
trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial
proceedings. The enquiry officer functions in a quasi-judicial
capacity. He has a neutral role to perform and cannot act as a
representative of the management. He has to act as an
independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. ......"
10. Thus, in a Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer performs a
quasi judicial function. It is true that in a Departmental Proceeding, in strict
sense, Evidence Act is not applied, but if a charge is sought to be proved, the
same has to be proved by oral evidence or any documentary evidence. The
2026:JHHC:945
charge is to be proved in the inquiry proceeding before the Enquiry Officer. In
a quasi judicial proceeding before the Enquiry Officer, there has to be
evidence either oral or documentary or both to prove the charge. If a charge is
sought to be proved solely based on documentary evidence, not only those
documents are to be supplied to the delinquent employee, but such
documents along with their contents must be proved before the Enquiry
Officer during the proceeding. For proving the document and its contents,
such document should be legally available before the Enquiry Officer, as per
law. Mere tendering the document or annexing the same along with the
chargesheet cannot be said that the document is before the Enquiry Officer as
per law. If the document is not before the Enquiry Officer, as per law, it cannot
be said that the document is on record. The document has to be brought on
record as per the provisions prescribed by law. Merely annexing those
documents along with the chargesheet is not sufficient and it cannot be said
that the said document has been brought on record as per law. What is not
evidence in proper sense cannot be relied upon, acted upon nor cognizance
of such document can be taken by the Enquiry Officer. In the case of Bareilly
Electricity Supply Company Limited versus The Workmen reported in
(1971) 2 SCC 617, at paragraph 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that
mere filing of any document does not amount to proof of them and unless
those are either admitted by the respondents or proved, they cannot become
evidence.
11. In the case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank
reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
an officer conducting an Enquiry must arrive at findings only after considering
the materials brought on record by the parties. So what can be relied upon is
the material, which has been brought on record. Merely annexing some
documents with the chargesheet will not amount to bringing the said
document on record, unless and until the said document and its contents are
proved. The onus of proving is upon the party who is producing those
documents. Once the said document and its contents are proved, then only
question of admitting the said document by the delinquent will arise and not
before that. Admission also must be specific and cannot be deemed. There
cannot be deemed admission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of
Panchayati Raj, Lucknow versus Ram Prakash Singh reported in 2025
2026:JHHC:945
SCC OnLine SC 891, at paragraph 14 while considering the case of Bareilly
Electricity Supply Company Limited (supra), has held as follows: -
"14. What follows from a conjoint reading of the above two
decisions is and what applies here is that, 'materials brough 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 crossexamine 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."
12. The dictate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, is that a
document does not prove itself. The same has to be proved as per law by
examining witnesses and merely annexing a document with the chargesheet
cannot be said to be bringing a document on record as per law and those
documents cannot be relied upon by the Enquiry Officer unless the same is
proved in the Enquiry Proceedings. Aforesaid is the proposition of law as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of the Division Bench and
its findings/observations, which the respondents have relied upon, is not in
consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgments which have been referred to above. Thus, in my view, when the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds the field and explains the law,
any judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, which runs contrary,
cannot be relied upon. In my opinion, the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in L.P.A. No.404 of 2021 (supra), which the respondents have
relied, is in direct conflict with the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
referred to above. Thus, the judgment of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.404
of 2021 (supra) cannot bind this Court. It is the judgment of the Supreme
Court, which lay down the law, is binding upon this Court.
13. Be it noted that it is an admitted fact, admitted by the State that
the entire case, as per the Enquiry Officer, has been proved by the documents
only, which were annexed with the chargesheet. It is also admitted by the
2026:JHHC:945
State that no witnesses were produced to prove the contents of the said
document. This is the case of the State that since the employee did not deny
existence of those documents, rather accepted the same, it is proper to punish
him based on those documents. This submission of the counsel for the State
runs contrary to the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ram Prakash Singh (supra). Thus, in my view, the documents,
which the State relies upon, though annexed with the chargesheet, cannot be
said to be "on record" in the Departmental Proceeding as the same were not
introduced before the Enquiry Officer in the proceeding in a legal manner.
Once the same was not introduced as per law, the Enquiry Officer could not
have relied upon those documents for proving the guilt of the delinquent.
Further, the question of admitting those documents by the delinquent will arise
only after those documents are brought on record before the Enquiry Officer in
the Enquiry Proceedings as per law. Unless those documents are brought on
record, as per law, there is no question of admitting or denying the same.
14. Since no oral evidence has been produced to prove those
documents or its contents and since the document was also not brought on
record as per law, I am of the view that without there being any legal
evidence, Enquiry Officer has arrived at a conclusion that the charge is
proved. Such finding is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment, as contained in Memo
No.3762 dated 21.07.2015 (Annexure 8) issued under the pen and signature
of respondent No.2, is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to provide
all the consequential benefits to the petitioner including disbursement of Post
Retiral Benefits.
15. This writ petition stands allowed. Pending interlocutory
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Ranchi
Dated 15th January, 2026
Kumar/Cp-02
AFR
Uploaded on 15.01.2026
