Departmental proceedings vitiated if based solely on unproved criminal investigation documents without oral witnesses or cross-examination, violating natural justice and fair play principles.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

I.A No. 9484 of 2025

1. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellants for condonation of delay of 119 days.

2. Looking to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, we condone the delay and dispose of I.A No. 9484 of 2025.

L.P.A No. 392 of 2025

3. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 1697 of 2022, whereby the learned writ Court has allowed the prayer of the respondent-writ petitioner by quashing the impugned Resolution No.1461 dated 23.08.2017 issued vide Memo No. 1462 dated 23.08.2017 whereby husband of the respondent-writ petitioner was dismissed from service and also the order dated 01.02.2022 issued vide Memo No. 128 whereby the appeal preferred by the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner against the order of dismissal was rejected.

4. The learned writ Court has further held that the respondent-writ petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits including death-cum-retiral benefits in accordance with law and the appellants herein were directed to complete the entire exercise for release of amount in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks.

5. Sans detail, respondent-writ petitioner is the wife of late Manoj Prasad who was working as Junior Electrical Engineer and died on 13.10.2017. While husband of the respondent-writ petitioner was posted as Junior Electrical Engineer, Lohardaga, a raid was conducted on 14.03.2013 in relation to theft of electricity for which her husband lodged an FIR against several persons including one Rajendra Sahu.

6. The case of the respondent-writ petitioner is that pursuant to institution of a FIR by the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner, the said Rajendra Sahu deposited the amount of fine and thereafter the case was dropped after a compromise arrived at Lok Adalat. However, as a revenge, the son of the said Rajendra Sahu made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi on 04.05.2013 with an allegation that the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner was demanding a sum of Rs. 2000/- as bribe for providing electric connection on his shop.

7. On the basis of said complaint, FIR was lodged and a raid was conducted and the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner was arrested and after investigation, the Vigilance Bureau submitted the charge-sheet against the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner for the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, husband of the respondent-writ petitioner preferred a regular bail and he was released on bail.

8. Further fact reveals that pursuant to release of husband of the respondent-writ petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated by issuing a memo of charge which was served upon the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner on 19.12.2013 making an allegation that the Vigilance Bureau had arrested him while accepting Rs. 2000/- as bribe money. An enquiry officer was also appointed and in the departmental proceeding, the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner was imposed punishment of dismissal from service.

Thereafter, the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner preferred an appeal. During the pendency of appeal, the husband of the respondent-writ petitioner died on 13.10.2017 and when no decision was taken on appeal, the respondent-writ petitioner filed a writ application being W.P.(S) No 1486 of 2018.

During pendency of the writ petition, the