Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
Kameshwar Kumar, son of Surendra Pathak – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 4019 of 2024
Decided on : 11-12-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Baibhav Gahlaut, AC to AAG-V
The High Court, under Article 226, cannot act as an appellate authority over departmental inquiries. Its intervention is limited to cases involving violations of natural justice or procedural illegality, and it cannot re-evaluate findings of fact or the adequacy of evidence where some supporting evidence exists.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Scope of judicial review - Departmental inquiry - High Court exercising writ jurisdiction is not an appellate authority - Interference restricted to instances where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or in violation of natural justice - Court cannot re-evaluate factual findings or adequacy of evidence if the disciplinary procedure is compliant with statutory rules. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
A public employee approached the court challenging the punitive order of withholding annual increments following a departmental inquiry. The petitioner alleged that the inquiry was conducted without recording reasons and lacked evidentiary support. The responding authority asserted that the proceedings followed due process, provided adequate opportunity for defense, and were based on findings of misconduct.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had been granted ample opportunity to contest the charges. The court determined that the punishment imposed was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate, and there was no procedural violation that would warrant judicial intervention.
Issues: The main issues were whether the High Court serves as an appellate authority to re-examine factual findings from a departmental inquiry and whether the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the substantiated charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to correcting jurisdictional errors or procedural irregularities. It established that since the inquiry was handled according to established procedures and supported by evidence, the court would not substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and initiation of departmental proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7) |
| 2. conflicting contentions regarding procedural fairness and factual allegations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. limited scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings and proportionality of punishment. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. final order dismissing the writ petition. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:-
i. “For issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside order dated 20.04.2024 vide Memo No. 182 (ANNEXURE-10) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur (Respondent No. 2) whereby the petitioner has been given a punishment of stoppage of two annual increment with non- cumulative effect and further direction has been given to the Circle Officer, Littipara, Pakur to enter the same in the service book of the petitioner.
ii. For issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing upon the respondents to release Rs. 28,879/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Nine) to the petitioner for the cost incurred in getting the User Acceptance Test of VVPAT which has been paid by the petitioner from his own pocket but the same has been withheld by the respondents illegally.”
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was assigned the task of shifting EVMs (BU & CU) from the old warehouse to the new one, for which a total of 28 labors worked on different dates. However, the respondent no. 4 got the work carried out through labors arranged by a middleman. As per the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 (Officer-in- Charge, District Election Branch, Pakur) instructed him to make file notings of vouchers falsely showing 189 labors for ₹69,930 in place of 28 labors and later 178 labors for ₹65,860. Thereafter on 27.07.2023, the respondent no. 3 asked him to give explanation for not moving the file even after repeated requests and respondent no. 4 lodged an F.I.R. against him. The petitioner gave his reply on 28.07.2023 which was not found satisfactory and hence, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. A charge memo was issued against the petitioner on 08.09.2023, to which the petitioner replied on 30.09.2023. The Enquiry Officer found first charge proved and second charge partially proved against the petitioner and by order dated 20.04.2024, the petitioner was inflicted punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Thus, aggrieved by the order of punishment, this writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts forth his arguments stating that the punishment order has been passed by the respondent authorities without recording any reason without considering the show cause of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the Enquiry Officer has not examined any documents nor there are evidences to support the allegations.
5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the punishment has been imposed after a proper departmental proceeding and also the petitioner had been provided ample opportunity to place his defense. The learned counsel submits that the contention of the petitioner of being forced to move falsified bills has not been corroborated with any facts or testimony.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records. I find that the departmental proceeding has been conducted fairly in accordance with law following the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was given full opportunity to present his defense. It is well settled that High Courts have very limited scope under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, it cannot act as an appellate authority and re-evaluate findings of fact or the adequacy of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 has held as under:
“23. The scope of examination and inter
