##PAGE1##

2026:JHHC:2276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 1223 of 2017

--

Mithilesh Kumar Jha, son of Late Chandra Kant Jha,

residentof Mohalla-Krishnapuri, Williams Town, P.O. &

P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the

Secretary/Principal Secretary, Personnel

Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department,

having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-

Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi

2. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Personnel

Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department,

having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-

Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi

3. The Conducting Officer-cum-Departmental Enquiry

Officer, having office at Town Administrative Building,

near Golchakkar, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town

and District-Ranchi

...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

--

For the Petitioner(s) : M/s. Manoj Tandon, Neha Bhardwaj,

Shivani Bhardwaj, Karamjeet S.

Chhabra, Advocates

For the Resp.-State : Mr. Karan Shahdeo, A.C to S.C.-II

--

21/28.01.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred

by the Petitioner for the following reliefs:

(i) To quash and set aside the penalty order contained in

Resolution by Memo No. 197/Stha. Dated 11.3.2016,

whereby and whereunder, the following penalty has been

inflicted upon the petitioner: -

(a) Reversion from the post of Junior Selection Grade to

the feeder category (basic grade) of Jharkhand

Administrative Service. The petitioner would be

entitled to withdraw the salary of the minimum pay

scale of Jharkhand Administrative Service.

(b) The petitioner would be entitled for future increments

after reversion.

(c) The petitioner would not be entitled for promotion for

seven years from the date of penalty.

(ii) To quash and set aside the appellate order dated 28.9.2016

communicated by respondent no.2, whereby and

whereunder, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against

the penalty order has been rejected.

1

2026:JHHC:2276

(iii) To also quash and set aside the entire departmental

proceeding against the petitioner including the enquiry

report dated 10.2.2014 submitted by respondent no. 3 by

letter no 18/Personnel/2011-12/73 dated 10.2.2014.

(iv) To grant all consequential benefits to the Petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has two fold

submissions in order to challenge the impugned order:

(i) No witness has been examined in this case in

order to prove the documents and in catena of

judgments, it has been repeatedly held that no

document can be considered to be proved, unless

it is proved by oral evidence.

(ii) For same set of charges, criminal case was

also lodged and the same was quashed by this

Court under inherent jurisdiction; as such, the

order of punishment of reversion be quashed and

set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondents draws

attention of this Court towards enquiry report and the order

of punishment and submits that there is no perversity in

the order and it is well reasoned order and no interference

is required. However, he could not dispute the fact that no

witness has been examined in order to prove the charges

levelled against the petitioner.

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

2

2026:JHHC:2276

the case of Roop Singh Negi & 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 Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325, 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