Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN
Rabindra Nath Panda S/o Late Ram Krishna Panda – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents, at length.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order as contained in Memo No.5/Aarop-1-555/2014 Ka-7103/Ranchi dated 19.09.2018 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), whereby in a Departmental Proceeding, the petitioner was found guilty on the basis of the impugned enquiry report and he was imposed with a punishment of deduction of 10% of his pension, under Rule 43 (b) of the JHARKHAND PENSION RULES , 2000.
3. The petitioner was the Settlement Officer at the relevant point of time.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had appointed 27 persons as “Safai Moharir” without following the appointment process and without any advertisement.
5. Since, charge was framed against the petitioner before his superannuation, the enquiry continued and ultimately the petitioner was punished by invoking Rule 43 (b) of the JHARKHAND PENSION RULES , 2000.
6. After going through the enquiry report which has been annexed with the counter affidavit, I find that the respondents have found the allegation levelled against the petitio
Departmental proceedings require oral or documentary evidence to support charges; without it, findings are invalid and violate principles of natural justice.
In departmental proceedings, charges must be substantiated by oral evidence; mere document submission is insufficient, rendering the proceedings invalid.
Non-examination of witnesses to prove documents in a departmental proceeding violates the principle of natural justice and renders the entire proceeding and enquiry vitiated.
In departmental proceedings, charges cannot be proved solely on documentary evidence without oral corroboration, upholding the principles of natural justice.
A departmental proceeding cannot result in punishment without oral evidence; reliance solely on an internal inquiry report is insufficient.
The court ruled that failure to provide inquiry reports and examine witnesses violates natural justice, rendering disciplinary actions arbitrary and illegal.
Departmental inquiries must comply with procedural standards and sufficient evidence is needed to uphold findings of misconduct.
Departmental inquiries must substantiate allegations with evidence through witness testimony, not solely through unverified documents.
In departmental proceedings, charges must be substantiated by oral evidence; reliance solely on unproven documents violates principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
