Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 1324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Satyam Bhardwaj Son of Late Lal Mohan - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 317 of 2022
Decided On : 22-01-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
JHARKHAND GOVERNMENT SERVANT CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES : R.17(4), R.19(b), R.19(c)
Headnote
(B) Evidence Law - Principles of natural justice - Departmental inquiry - Documentary evidence tendered without proving contents through oral testimony is not sustainable - Principle that document does not prove itself remains applicable even where Evidence Act is not strictly followed. (Paras 17, 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding regarding alleged administrative lapses during his tenure as a government servant. The disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of withholding three annual increments. The petitioner challenged the punishment order and the appellate decision, contending that the procedure was flawed, lacked legal evidence, and failed to address specific imputations on merit.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the disciplinary authority incorrectly conflated procedures for major and minor penalties and relied on an inquiry report that lacked oral evidence. The department failed to prove the authenticity or contents of the documents relied upon, thereby violating principles of fair play and natural justice.
Issues: The main issues were whether a departmental inquiry can sustain a finding of guilt solely based on documents without substantive oral evidence and whether the disciplinary authority failed to independently evaluate the allegations before imposing a minor penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: An inquiry officer acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and must arrive at findings based on evidence brought on record in a manner known to law. Documents do not prove themselves, and the contents must be spoken to by competent witnesses. A disciplinary authority imposing a minor penalty must independently apply its mind to each imputation of misconduct after considering the delinquent's representation, rather than solely relying on an inquiry report that lacks legal evidence.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders of punishment and appellate order quashed; matter remitted back to disciplinary authority for fresh decision.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, SC-V, Mr. Sushawan Bhawmik, AC to SC-V
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of departmental proceedings and the challenge to the order of punishment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. mandatory procedural requirements under the jharkhand government servants cca rules, 2016. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. documents in a departmental enquiry must be proven by oral evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. requirement of independent assessment by disciplinary authority in minor penalty proceedings. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 5. remittal of case to disciplinary authority for fresh determination following procedural violation. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
1. Heard, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. By filling this writ petition the petitioner is praying to quash the order dated 27.11.2020, contained in Memo No.6156 by which after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of stoppage of three increments without any cumulative effect. Further, he challenged the Appellate Order dated 01.12.2022 contained in Memo No.7576 also by which the appeal was rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the order is absolutely bad in law and the provisions/the procedure laid down in service rules for initiating a departmental proceeding and punishing the employee, has not been opted by the respondents. As per him, there are no evidences which is led by the respondents to prove the charges against the petitioner. He also submits that on the facts of this case, the petitioner who was an Assistant Section Officer did have any capacity or power to extend the time or did not have any role to play in the departmental proceeding which was initiated against one-Matiyas Vijay Toppo. He submits that there are other persons in the hierarchy but without any reasons, the petitioner has been punished.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the punishment which has been imposed upon the petitioner is a minor punishment, thus, this Court should not interfere. According to him since the charge which was levelled against the petitioner stands proved, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the order of punishment. He argues that the Enquiry Officer found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved, thus this Court should not substitute its own views and exonerate him. He lastly submits that from the enquiry report, it is clear that the department has proved the charges which has been levelled against the petitioner, thus no interference is called for.
5. The petitioner was an Assistant Section Officer. One Matiyas Vijay Toppo who was an SAR Officer, was suspended by the department. He filed writ petition being WP(S) No.1753/2016 before the High Court of Jharkhand. The same writ petition was disposed of on 31.08.2017 with specific direction upon the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, to conclude the departmental proceeding within one month with a condition that if the same is not concluded within one month, the suspension order would stand revoked. Further, it was made clear in the aforesaid order that if the reply to the Second Show Cause Notice by the petitioner is not received within next 15 days, the Disciplinary Authority shall be at liberty to pass final order. In connection with the aforesaid matter, the petitioner was charge- sheeted. The allegation against the petitioner as per the charge- sheet is that the petitioner proposed to grant time to Matiyas Vijay Toppo to file reply to the Second Show Cause Notice. Further, there is an allegation that the petitioner did not brought the file to the notice of the higher officials within time and the order was not placed before the Officers. There was also an allegation against the petitioner that he did n
