IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 982 of 2021 ------

Habibur Rahman, S/o Late Mohammad Ishaque, R/o Konka Road, PO-GPO-Ranchi, PS-Lower Bazar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

… … Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Principal Secretary, Personal Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Project Bhawan, PO-Dhurwa, PS-

Jaganathpur, District-Ranchi.

3. Additional Secretary, Personal Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Project Bhawan, PO-Dhurwa, PS-

Jaganathpur, District-Ranchi.

4. Dy. Commissioner, Office of the Dy. Commissioner, Administrative Building, Kutchery Campus, PO & PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

5. Block Development Officer, Sonahatu Block, PO & PS-

Sonahatu, District-Ranchi. … … Respondent(s)

------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Achyut Keshav, AAG-V ------

17/ 01^st December,2025

1. The petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 13.01.2014 as contained in Memo No.8/रा0-31/2013 whereby he has been inflicted the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and further a direction was made for recovery of Rs.1,35,322.24 from the petitioner in 13 installments. Further it was held that during the period of suspension, he is entitled to receive the suspension allowance only. The Appellate order dated 21.10.2020 is also under challenged by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in utter violation of principle of natural justice and the settled proposition of law, the departmental proceeding was conducted and thereafter, the petitioner was punished. It is his contention that none of the documents were supplied to the petitioner nor they were exhibited. As per him, no witnesses were examined by the employer, in the proceeding, to prove the guilt of the petitioner. In absence of any legal evidence on record, the petitioner could not have been held guilt and punished in the departmental proceeding.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that a full-fledged departmental inquiry was held and the petitioner was found guilty as the charges were proved against the petitioner. He further submits that since in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was held guilty and also the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the same.

4. It is his contention that this Court cannot sit in appeal in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.

5. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner was given charge of the Cashier. During that tenure his performance as Cashier, according to the respondents, was not up to the mark and as there was some allegation, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The charges which were leveled against the petitioner are as follows:-

“1. इन्हनोंे रहकड़पाल के दायित्व का यनर्वहन नह ों यकिा है।

2. इनके द्वारा यदनाोंक-31.03.2008 के बाद रहकड़पोंज नह ों यलख गि है, जह कािव के प्रयि उदास निा िथा कर्त्वव्यह निा का द्यहिक है।

3. नजारि में सोंधाररि रहकड़पोंयजिहों का दैयनक अद्यिन प्रयर्यििहों के साथ जााँच के यलए प्रधान यलयपक-सह-लेखापाल के समक्ष प्रस्तुि नह ों यकिा जाना सरकार रायि

का अस्थाि गबन है।

4. इनके द्वारा कुल 25,32,951.38 /- रुपिे का प्रभार नह ों स पोंा जाना, सरकार रायि का गबन है िथा 2,500/- रूपिे क गलि प्रयर्यि सामान्य रहकड़पोंज में क गि है।

5. प्रखण्ड के स मेन्ट गहदाम िथा एसजेआरर्ाई के िहि सोंधाररि खाद्यान्न गहदाम का प्रभार नह ों स पोंा जाना, सरकार सामग्र का गबन है।“

If translated in English, the gist of charges will be as follows:-

1. He has not discharged his duties as a cashier.

2. He has not maintained the cash register after 31.03.2008, which is indicative of his apathy towards work and dereliction of duty.

3. Not presenting the cash registers maintained in