IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.6983 of 2025 ------

Prabhat Kumar, son of late Mahavir Prasad, resident of Flat No.202, Nikunj Apartment, Patel Nagar, Road No.15, Hatia, P.O. + P.S. Hatia, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834003. … … Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment & Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O. + P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002.

2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests-cum-Head of the Forest Force, Jharkhand, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O. +

P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002.

3. The Chief Conservator of Forests (Non-Gazetted), Jharkhand, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O. + P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002.

4. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh, P.O. + P.S.

+ District Hazaribagh-825301.

5. The Conservator of Forest, Territorial Circle, Chatra, P.O. + P.S.

+ District Chatra,825401.

6. The Divisional Forest Officer, Chatra South Forest Division, Chatra, P.O. + P.S. + District Chatra-825401.

… … Respondents ------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to GA-I ------

02/ 08.12.2025 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction for quashing and setting aside the Memo of Charges issued vide Office Order No. 05, dated 30.01.2019 of the Conservator of Forests- Disciplinary Authority, Territorial Circle, Chatra (Annexure-1); the Inquiry Report dated 09.11.2019 of the Assistant Conservator of Forests-cum-Enquiry Officer, Chatra North Forest Division, Chatra (Annexure-2); and the subsequent Final Penalty Order, Office Order No.13, dated 17.07.2020 read with Memo No.994, dated 17.07.2020 of the Conservator of Forests-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Territorial Circle, Chatra (Annexure-4), imposing a major penalty on the Petitioner.

And, B. Direct the respondent authorities to forthwith restore all his consequential benefits, pay, increments, and promotions, treating the entire period since the imposition of the penalty as continuity in service, in accordance with Rule 12(3) or 13(3) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal)

Rules, 2016 (Annexure-12), as applicable.”

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

3. Since this is a writ of certiorari and the impugned order speaks for itself, I am not calling for the counter affidavit.

4. The petitioner has challenged the order of penalty inflicted on him in a disciplinary proceeding. The evidence relied upon is only the official documents, which are apparent from the last page of the enquiry report. From the enquiry report, it is evident that no witness was ever examined. The contents of the documentary evidence were also not formally proved by any oral evidence, in the disciplinary proceeding.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, has laid down the law by holding that the departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding and the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. It is the duty of the Enquiry Officer to arrive at the finding of guilt against the delinquent officer based on evidence which is duly collected. If the Enquiry Officer wants to get the charge proved based on some documents, those documents must be proved by some witnesses. Though, the Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable so far as departmental proceeding is concerned but when a document needs to be looked into, it has to be proved by an oral evidence. Witnesses must be examined to prove the said documents. Merely tendering of the document and not proving the contents thereof is not