IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.182 of 2026 -----

Kiran Kumari, W/o Dr. Prashant Kumar Suman, R/o 8L/20 Housing Colony, Sector

8, P.O. & P.S- Bahadurpur, District Patna, Bihar .... Petitioner(s).

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand having its office at- Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

2.Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand having its office at- Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

3.Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand having its office at- Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

4.Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand having its office at- Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi … Respondent(s)

------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vijay Shankar, Advocate Md. Imran Hassan, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. S.C.-II …......

03/ 27.01.2026: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Charge against the petitioner mainly is of unauthorized absence. 3. A departmental proceeding was initiated. The defence of the petitioner is that, having been appointed on compassionate grounds, she was under an obligation to look after her mother, which was a condition mentioned in the appointment letter itself. As her mother was ill, she had to take care of her, but the respondents in an unsympathetical manner rejected her prayer for leave.

4. Thereafter, a chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner and the enquiry report was prepared. After considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted punishment of dismissal from service.

Challenging the dismissal order, she filed an appeal, but the said appeal was also rejected.

5. The scope of interference in departmental proceedings by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954 at paragraph 21.1, has held that High Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence, which was led before the enquiry officer. By referring to judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree Rama Rao, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the function of the High Court to review the findings and arrive at a different finding. In a departmental proceeding, scope of interference is very limited and it is well settled that the High Court can interfere only where the departmental authority has acted against the principles of natural justice, or where the findings are based on no evidence, or are in violation of the statutory rules. Further, if the punishment imposed is excessive, the Court can interfere. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:-

(i) re-appreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based;

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

6. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has a limited scope of interference with the quantum of punishment. The determination of punishment lies within the domain of the departmental authorities. Unless the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, the H