Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Deepak Roshan, J.
Nawal Kishor Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 2372 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, S.C.-V

In departmental inquiries, the disciplinary authority must produce oral evidence to substantiate charges. Relying solely on documents without witness testimony or failing to ensure opportunity for cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice, thereby vitiating the entire disciplinary proceeding and any resulting punishment.

Headnote:(A) Government Servant Conduct Rules - Departmental inquiry - Necessity of oral evidence - Held, departmental inquiry proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and must strictly adhere to principles of natural justice - Evidence collected during investigation cannot be treated as legal evidence in disciplinary proceedings unless supported by oral testimony - Documents relied upon must be proven by examining witnesses having knowledge of contents in the presence of the delinquent employee - Failure to adhere to these procedures vitiates the inquiry report and the subsequent punishment order. (Paras 14, 15, 18, 20)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope of administrative review - When inquiry proceedings are conducted in complete disregard of fair play and violate procedural requirements, such orders are liable to be quashed - Appellate authority must ensure that the disciplinary inquiry was conducted in accordance with established legal principles. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, holding an administrative charge in an educational institution, was accused of involvement in the issuance of forged certificates. A departmental inquiry was initiated, which concluded that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. Consequently, a penalty of stoppage of annual increments was imposed. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected, leading to the current writ petition challenging the validity of the departmental proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that no oral evidence was produced during the departmental inquiry to prove the charges. No presenting officer was appointed, and no list of witnesses was submitted. The inquiry officer relied on documents without calling witnesses to prove their authenticity, thereby assuming the role of both prosecutor and judge, which violates the principles of natural justice and established legal precedents regarding departmental inquiry procedures.

Issues: Whether a departmental inquiry is vitiated for lack of oral evidence and failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice, and whether the punishment imposed based on such an inquiry is sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental inquiry cannot rely solely on documents unless the contents are proven by a witness. The failure to lead oral evidence and the failure to provide the delinquent with an opportunity for cross-examination results in a violation of natural justice, thereby rendering the inquiry and subsequent disciplinary action legally unsustainable.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders quashed; respondents directed to release withheld benefits.

Table of Content
1. overview of writ petition and requested reliefs. (Para 1 , 2)
2. disciplinary proceedings and factual context of allegations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. requirement of oral evidence in departmental inquiries. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. procedural violation: inquiry officer must remain neutral and record evidence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. setting aside arbitrary punishment due to procedural fair play failure. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs:

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s) /order(s) / direction(s), or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing of Memo No. 1059 dated 04.08.2022 (Annexure 16), whereby & where under the petitioner has been inflicted punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, without considering the facts, materials and evidences available on record:

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s) /order(s) / direction(s), or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing of appellate order, as contained in Memo No. 101 dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure 19), passed in Service Appeal No. 33/2022, whereby & where under the Learned Commissioner, Singhbhum, Kolhan division, at Chaibasa has taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner and directed the Deputy Commissioner as well as the District Superintendent of Education, Seraikella-Kharsawan to conduct a detail enquiry, as per the rule but to order of punishment is not interfered with, which is wholly arbitrary unjust & unsustainable in the eye of law:

(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s) /order(s) / direction(s), or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding upon and directing the respondents to pay the consequential benefits on event of the quashing of the above punishment order.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher and was given the charge of In-charge Headmaster in the Upgraded Middle School, Gangudih, within the Chandil Block, Seraikella-Kharsawan district. One Letter dated 25.08.2021, has been written by the Headmistress, S.S+2 High School, Seraikella-Kharsawan, addressed to Block Education Extension Officer, Chandil, with regard to verification of the Transfer Certificate of Tarana Parwin, being Certificate No. 76 and Jeenat Parwin being Certificate No. 77 dated 02.06.2021. Pursuant to the above letter the Block Education Extension Officer vide Memo No. 340 dated 27.08.2021 directed the petitioner, who was the In-charge Headmaster of the Upgraded Middle School, Gangudih and called for the Admission Register. The petitioner reported on 31.08.2021 that the Sl. No. 76 & 77 has never been issued by the Office of the School, the last Serial Number of the certificate, which is issued is only 59 and accordingly requested to lodge the F.I.R. against the beneficiary, who has produced the said certificate. The petitioner again replied vide its Letter dated 02.09.2021 that the certificate produced by the beneficiary is false & fabricated and therefore requested for lodging F.I.R. against the said person.

4. Thereafter, vide Memo No. 347 dated 02.09.2021, the Block Education Extension Officer, Chandil has reported the District Superintendent Education, Seraikella-Kharsawan that Transfer Certificate produced by the beneficiary and which has been asked for verification by the Headmistress S.S+2 High School is forged and fabricated and accordingly requested to take action against the In-charge Headmaster i.e. the petitioner.

5. Vide Memo No. 1224 dated 04.09.2021, the District Superintendent of Education, Seraikella-Kharsawan directed the Block Education Extension Officer, Gamharia to enquire about the matter and submit a report, after detail enquiry, within two days.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner vide its Letter dated 02.12.2021 given his explanation to the Block Education Extension Offi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHIDeepak Roshan, J.Nawal Kishor Prasad - PetitionerVersusThe State of Jharkhand - RespondentW.P. (S) No. 2372 of 2023Decided On : 08-04-2026

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Deepak Roshan, J.
Nawal Kishor Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 2372 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2026