Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 589

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Appellant
Versus
Abhay Shnkar Jha – Respondent
W.P (S) No.5766 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prabhat Kumar Sinha
For the Respondents: Manjushree Patra

An administrative authority lacks the power of review to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings on identical charges that have already been quashed by a judicial body, especially where such judicial orders have attained finality and no specific statutory provision authorizes such administrative review.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial review - Power of administrative review - Scope and ambit - In the absence of statutory provisions, administrative authorities lack the power to review their own orders or initiate departmental proceedings once a judicial forum has adjudicated upon the matter - Once a memorandum of charge has been quashed by a court of law and the said order has attained finality, it is impermissible for an administrative authority to initiate a fresh inquiry or issue notices against the same employees based on identical imputations. (Paras 31, 42, 46, 48)

(B) Judicial Discipline - Consistency in adjudication - Respect for orders of the Co-ordinate Bench and judicial hierarchy - When a matter has been settled up to the highest court, administrative authorities are bound by the principle of judicial discipline and cannot circumvent final orders by initiating fresh proceedings under the guise of administrative review. (Paras 47, 49)

Facts of the case:
Employees were initially appointed as daily-rated workers and subsequently regularized into permanent posts. Following an alleged discovery of fraud regarding their appointment and initial service, the employer initiated disciplinary proceedings by way of a charge memorandum. Various litigation rounds ensued before the administrative tribunal and the High Court, during which the initial charge sheets against the employees were quashed. Despite the finality attained by these orders, the employer issued fresh notices for departmental inquiry against the employees based on the identical allegations, prompting the employees to move the tribunal again, which quashed the notices. The employer challenged this tribunal order in the present writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The Court noted that the central issue of whether the employer could hold an administrative review after a judicial decision had already been answered in previous related matters. Relying on settled legal principles, the Court held that administrative review is not permissible without explicit statutory authority. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that once a charge sheet is quashed by a judicial body and the order becomes final, the employer cannot initiate new proceedings on the same set of facts.

Issues: Whether the employer has the authority to conduct an administrative review to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against employees despite prior judicial quashing of the underlying charge memorandum and the absence of specific statutory powers to do so.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the principle of judicial discipline requires administrative authorities to respect and abide by decisions of courts of law. Since the memorandum of charge had been quashed and the matter had attained finality up to the Supreme Court, any further attempt to initiate an inquiry for the same allegations amounts to an impermissible administrative review of a judicial decision, violating the binding force of the previous judgments.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding bsnl employee regularization and subsequent disciplinary actions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding the scope of departmental inquiry versus finality of previous judicial orders. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. judicial review precludes administrative review of quashed departmental proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

Order No.05/Dated:16^th February, 2026 Per, Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. In the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

“For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order/judgment dated 09.04.2025 passed in O.A No. OA/51/00444/2020 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 the learned Tribunal has been pleased to quash and set aside order dated 13.11.2020 calling the applicants to appear in the Departmental Enquiry in respect of Charge Sheet dated 29.11.2016 and further direction was given to grant all consequential benefits to the applicants as per the rules within a periods of three months from the date of this 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.”

2. 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 India as referred in the same Office Order in which the name of the applicants find place. It is stated that subsequently they have been regularized against the post of Regular Majdoor with effect from 06.02.2002 which is Permanent Group-“D” post under Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited.

(ii) While the applicants were working under Department, the Respondents (Petitioner herein) have issued order dated 20.01.1999 whereby the said order granting temporary status, has been kept in abeyance without any rhyme and reason.

(iii) Thereafter the applicants have filed one Original Application being Original Application No.144 of 1999 challenging the said order dated 20.01.1999 which was allowed on 29.11.2001 whereby the said Order dated 20.01.1999 cancelling / keeping in abeyance the Temporary Status granted to the Applicants has been set aside and the Respondents have been directed to reinstate the Applicants with liberty to enquire into the allegations of submitting forged certificates after giving appropriate opportunity to participate in the Enquiry and to take appropriate action in the light of Enquiry Report in accordance with law and in compliance thereof, the Applicants have been reinstated in service and subsequently the Respondents have issued one Letter dated 07.01.2002 directing the Applicants to submit their work diary and accordingly the Applicants have submitted their Work Diary on 16.01.2002 under clear receipt and thereafter they were reinstated in the service vide Order dated 25.01.2002 and thereafter the Respondents have conducted verification with their Work Diary which were found correct and genuine.

(iv) It is further relevant to submit and state here that the Respondents herein have thereafter constituted Departmental Screening Committee (DPC) who met on 30.04.2002 and recommended for regularization and in compliance thereto the Respondents have issued Office Order dated 11.07.2002 whereby and whereunder the Applicants have been regularized as Regular Majdoor i.e. against Group-"D" Post with effect from 06.02.2002 unconditionally in which the name of Applicants finds

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 589

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDSujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJBharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – AppellantVersusAbhay Shnkar Jha – RespondentW.P (S) No.5766 of 2025

Cases Referred (5)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Appellant
Versus
Abhay Shnkar Jha – Respondent
W.P (S) No.5766 of 2025