IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4100 of 2017 ….…..

Yugesh Pandey, son of late Sahdeo Pandey, resident of village- Khuta, P.O. Jaratoli, P.S. Piskanagri, District- Ranchi at Present posted as Peon Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, P.O.+P.s. & District-Ranchi.

..… Petitioner (s)

Versus

1. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

2. Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

3. Assistant Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s)

….…..

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….…

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Binod Singh, Adv For the Resp.-RMC : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Adv Mr. Karbir, Adv ….…..

13/03.02.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order of punishment dated 09.11.2016 issued by the 1st Respondent; whereby the petitioner has been reduced to a lower stage in a time scale with a further order that during his suspension period he would be entitled only for subsistence allowance.

The petitioner, amongst other grounds, has also raised a legal issue that no oral witness has been examined in the case in order to prove charges levelled against him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention towards the charge-sheet and enquiry proceeding that enquiry officer himself has proved the charge which is against the settled principal of law.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the order of punishment by saying that full opportunity was given to the petitioner and since the petitioner did not want to cross examine any person, therefore no witness has been produced on behalf of the Respondents. However, the law in this regard is well settled that oral witness is necessary to prove the charge levelled against any delinquent and the enquiry officer has to act as an umpire and not to act as a representative of the Government.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record; admittedly, in this case no oral witness has been examined in order to prove the document/charges levelled against the petitioner. The issue of examination of oral witness has been dealt repeatedly by the Hon’ble Apex Court right from the case of Roop Singh Negi and further reiterated in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha. However, it has been seen in many cases that the authorities have not yet understood the importance of evidence of oral evidence.

6. In the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another1, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory. Reference in this regard may be held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank9 and Nirmala J.

Jhala v. State of Gujarat.10

14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi, this Court held that mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof reads as under:—

“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merel