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

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.
The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Through Chief Managing Director, Jan Path, P.O. Jan Path, P.S. Parliament Stret Police Station, District - New Delhi - Petitioner
Versus
Shyam Bihari Son of Sri Mahabir Prasad Yadav - Respondent
W.P (S) No.497 of 2026 with W.P (S) No.6953 of 2025
Decided On : 05-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Mayank Mridul, Advocate

Administrative authority cannot review judicially quashed charge memorandum attaining finality by issuing fresh inquiry notices absent statutory power; violates judicial discipline.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Power of Administrative Review - Absent statutory provision, administrative authority cannot exercise review powers over matters judicially settled - Once memorandum of charge quashed by tribunal and decision attains finality upon dismissal of special leave petition, employer cannot issue fresh notices for inquiry or administrative review of regularization orders. (Paras 31, 42, 44, 46, 49)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial Review - Scope limited to error apparent on face of record or perversity; court cannot re-appraise facts or substitute views unless manifest legal error. (Paras 25-30)

Facts of the case:
Employees initially appointed as casual labour, granted temporary status and later regularized after verifications, departmental screenings, and tribunal orders upholding process. Employer alleged fraud in appointments, issued common charge memorandum quashed by tribunal for one group (upheld by high court and supreme court dismissal); for another group, tribunal kept charge in abeyance pending inquiry into senior officials' role, uncompleted within time. Employer later instituted criminal case and issued notices for administrative review of original regularization, challenged and quashed by tribunal.

Findings of Court:
No error apparent or perversity in tribunal order quashing review notices; employer lacks authority to revisit quashed charges or conduct fresh inquiry against employees; liberty granted was solely for action against senior officials.

Issues: Whether employer competent to issue notices for administrative review of regularization after judicial quashing of charge memorandum attaining finality; scope of judicial review over tribunal orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative review impermissible without statute, especially post-judicial finality on charge quashing; notices tantamount to reviewing court decision on administrative side, violating judicial discipline; judicial review confined to patent errors, absent here. Result : Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. writ petitions challenge common tribunal order quashing reviews (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. employees' regularization upheld; repeated charges quashed judicially (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. fraud findings permit administrative review per tribunal liberty (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. judicial review only for apparent errors; no inherent admin review (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. charge memo quashing final; seniors' inquiry only permitted (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
6. no fresh inquiry after judicial quashing of charges (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 49)
7. writ petitions dismissed; tribunal order upheld (Para 51)

ORDER :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. Both the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing as these are preferred against the common order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Bench at Ranchi).

2. The common order dated 19.08.2025 passed in O.A No. OA/050/00151/2021 and O.A No. OA/050/00306/2021 is under challenge in W.P(S) No.6953 of 2025 and W.P(S) No.497 of 2026 respectively.

3. The following prayers have been made in these writ petitions:

In W.P(S) No.6953 of 2025:

“That by the instant writ petition petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order/Judgment passed in dated 19.08.2025 OA/ 050/ 00151/ 2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Bench at Ranchi); whereby and whereunder Original Application filed by the respondents has been allowed and learned tribunal has been pleased to quash and set aside order dated 25.02.2021 by which Petitioners herein have decided to review the TDM Dumka Order dated 09.03.1998 on the ground of collusion, forgery, malafides, conspiracy & fraud etc. and also petitioners herein was directed to grant all consequential benefits to the respondents herein/applicants to the OA as per the rules within a period of 3 months from the date of the order which is absolutely perverse both on law and facts.

And/Or

Issue such other writ(s) /order(S)/Rule(s)/Direction(S) as your lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case for doing substantial justice to the Petitioners.”

In W.P(S) No.497 of 2026:

“That by the instant writ petition petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order/Judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed in OA/050/00306/2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Bench at Ranchi); whereby and whereunder Original Application filed by the respondents has been allowed and learned tribunal has been pleased to quash and set aside order dated 04.09.2021 by which the applicants of the OA/050/00306/2021 / respondents herein have been directed to appear before review DPC on 22.09.2021 and also petitioners herein was directed to grant all consequential benefits to the respondents herein/applicants to the OA as per the rules within a period of 3 months from the date of the order which is absolutely perverse both on law and facts.

And/Or

Issue such other writ(s) /order(S)/Rule(s)/Direction(S) as your lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case for doing substantial justice to the Petitioners.”

4. Since both these writ petitions have been preferred against the common order and further similar issue has to be adjudicated in these writ petitions, therefore, this Court is delving upon the factual aspect of the W.P(S) No.6953 of 2025 taking it as lead case.

5. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petitions which are enumerated from the pleadings of the Original Applications reads as under:

(i) The applicants (respondents herein) have been initially appointed a Casual Labour in between 1985 to 1988 and they were granted Temporary Status with effect from 09.03.1998 as per the directive of Hon'ble Supreme Court of

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