IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
Sudhir Kumar Sinha, son of Late Surendra Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P.(S) No.244 of 2021
Decided On : 09-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's service termination and reinstatement claims. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding authority and validity of proceedings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. requirements for evidence in disciplinary proceedings. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. evidence must prove charges in departmental proceedings. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 5. writ petition allowed; reinstatement ordered. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
1 By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for following reliefs:-
(i) “For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), order(s), and/or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Office Order no. 32 dated 19.12.2019, contained in Memo No. 1147 dated 19.12.2019, issued by respondent no.4 as contained in Annexure-22, whereby and where in compliance of order of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court dated 03.09.2019 in W.P.(S) No. 3294 of 2011(Sudhir Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors), a reasoned order has been passed terminating the service of the petitioner,
(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s) upon concerned respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Amin Inspector in the district of Hazaribagh with all consequential benefits, upon quashment of order dated 19.12.2019 as contained in Annexure-22.
(iii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s), for quashing letter no. 3097 dated 22.11.2019 issued under the signature of respondent no,5, whereby and hereunder after passing of order in W.P.(S) No. 3294 of 2011( Sudhir Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors), the respondent no. 5 has refused to accept the joining submitted by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-24;
(iv) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of second show cause notice issued by respondent no.4 contained in Memo No. 1075 dated 30.11.2019 along with Memo of charges contained in office order no.187 dated 28.12.2006 and order no. 50 dated 10.04.2008, issued by Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle, Hazaribagh as contained in Annexure-23 to the writ application.
(v) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s), directing the concerned respondents to immediately and forthwith make payment of salary which is due to the petitioner since 17.4.2008 owing to the fact that the punishment order of the petitioner has been quashed/set aside by the order of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court dated 3.09.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3294 of 2011( Sudhir Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors); ”
2. Heard learned senior counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 26.04.1983, he was appointed on the post of Amin on compassionate ground. On 17.01.1998, vide office order no. 10, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Amin Inspector. There were no departmental proceedings initiated or complaint filed nor any criminal case lodged against the petitioner during his entire service career. However, after lapse of more than 25 years of service, the petitioner while being posted at Hazaribagh West, started getting harassed at the instance of the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle. The petitioner was transferred to the post of Amin Inspector, Chatra North Division vide office order no. 80 dated 14.06.2005, even though there was no sanctioned post of Amin Inspector. The petitioner joined the post but was paid no salary as the said post was not sanctioned. The petitioner filed several representations but no heed was paid. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Giridih Forest and gave his joining on 02.06.2006. Subsequently, the Conservator of Forest, Santhal Pargana Division, Deoghar became the controlling authority and the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle had no control over the petitioner. On 10.01.2007, vide letter no 138 along with copy of the office order no.
AI
Departmental inquiries must adhere to quasi-judicial standards, requiring evidence and witness examination to substantiate charges against an employee.
A departmental inquiry requires evidence to substantiate charges; charges not backed by proof are insufficient for imposing punishment.
Departmental proceedings must comply with established rules, requiring evidence and witness examination; failure to do so invalidates the proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings quashed for defective charge memo without imputations, documents, witnesses; no departmental evidence or witnesses; perfunctory enquiry report lacking independent reasons and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.