SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2199

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, Advocate

Departmental inquiries must adhere to quasi-judicial standards, requiring evidence and witness examination to substantiate charges against an employee.

Headnote:(A) Jharkhand Service Rules - Departmental Proceedings - The service of the petitioner was terminated without any departmental proceedings initiated against him and the inquiry was vitiated due to lack of evidence and failure to examine witnesses. The court highlighted the necessity of proof in disciplinary proceedings stating that mere allegations without substantiation cannot justify punishment. (Paras 7, 8, 9)

(B) Quasi-Judicial Proceedings - Departmental inquiry is recognized as a quasi-judicial process, requiring evidence collection and witness examination to substantiate charges against a delinquent officer. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed on a compassionate ground, faced harassment and was wrongfully dismissed without adequate inquiry or evidence, after years of service; multiple orders against him were deemed illegal.

Findings of Court:
The court determined the dismissal to be unconstitutional due to lack of substantiated evidence and declared all associated orders null and void.

Issues: The core issues revolved around the authority of the disciplinary body and the validity of the evidence presented in support of the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that without witness examination, the charges could not be upheld, as the inquiry failed to substantiate the claims made against the petitioner.

Result: Writ petition allowed, termination orders quashed and reinstatement ordered with all benefits.

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top