Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 527

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Binda Paswan son of late Nakat Paswan - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Road construction Department – Respondent
W.P.(S) No.2646 of 2012
Decided On : 08-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate, Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Karamjit Singh Chhabra, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GP-III

When a disciplinary authority disagrees with findings of an enquiry officer, it must independently record reasons and grant the accused an opportunity to represent their defense. Failure to do so violates natural justice, and remanding such matters after long delays and employee retirement is contrary to judicial interest.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Disciplinary proceedings - Imposition of major penalty - Disciplinary authority disagreement with enquiry report - Requirement of natural justice - Principles of fair play in action - Non-application of mind by competent authority - Duty to provide opportunity of representation against disagreement note.

(B) Service Law - Procedural irregularity - Remand - Long delay and superannuation - Absence of justification for further proceedings - Prohibition on benefiting from own procedural wrong.

Facts of the case:
A public servant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings where charges were not proven by an enquiry officer. A subordinate official expressed disagreement with the report. The competent disciplinary authority, without independent application of mind and without affording an opportunity to the employee to represent against the disagreement, imposed financial recovery and reduction of increments. The individual sought judicial intervention, noting that more than a decade had passed since the initiation of the disciplinary process and that the employee had already retired from service.

Findings of Court:
The disciplinary authority failed to exercise its statutory power to independently apply its mind to the enquiry report. The delegation of forming a disagreement note to a subordinate officer is legally untenable. Principles of natural justice demand that the accused be provided an opportunity to be heard before an adverse decision is made based on a disagreement with enquiry findings.

Issues: The main questions were whether the disciplinary authority followed settled legal procedures regarding disagreement notes and natural justice, and whether the matter warranted a remand after the employee’s retirement.

Ratio Decidendi: The disciplinary process is fundamentally flawed when the competent authority fails to personally apply its mind to the evidence and improperly delegates the process of disagreement. Furthermore, after a substantial lapse of time and the superannuation of the individual, remanding the matter is against the interests of justice.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned order quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 18.1.2012 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department - Respondent No.4, whereby and whereunder, the recovery of Rs. 3,63,333/- has been sought from the petitioner with a further punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. It has also been mentioned in the order impugned that the petitioner would not be entitled for anything than what he has been paid under Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code during the period of suspension.

Factual Matrix:

2. The brief facts of the case which require to be enumerated herein read as under:

(i) It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the month of December, 1987. The State of Bihar was bifurcated on 15.11.2000 and the services of the petitioner was finally allocated to the State of Jharkhand in view of the provisions enshrined in Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. Right from the date of appointment the petitioner was discharging his duties to the satisfaction of all concerned without any complaint of any kind whatsoever against the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Section, Raidih under the jurisdiction of Road Division, Gumla during the Financial Year 2008-2009, he was put under suspension vide order no. 255 dated 4.9.2009 under the provisions enshrined in Bihar and Orissa Sub-Ordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935.

(iii) Memo of charge was framed against the petitioner on 9.2.2010 and the said charge was communicated to the petitioner by office order dated 10.2.2010. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 24.3.2020 to the enquiry officer, the In-charge Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The petitioner denied each and every charges. The petitioner explained the entire facts to show that he was not at all responsible and guilty for any kind of omission or commission.

(iv) A thorough enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, the Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing and this enquiry report was prepared on 01.08.2011. On perusal of the enquiry report it would be evident that none of the four charges against the petitioner were proved. The said enquiry report was forwarded by the enquiry officer to the Government by letter dated 2.8.2011.

(v) The Deputy Secretary of the Road Construction Department without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner differed with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and communicated the same to the petitioner by letter dated 15.10.2011.

(vi) The petitioner having no option has submitted his reply on 11.11.2011 to the said letter dated 15.10.2011 wherein the petitioner reiterated that none of the charges were proved against the petitioner and there was no point in differing with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and the petitioner was fit to be exonerated of the charges.

(vii) However, none of the grounds taken by the petitioner was considered and the disciplinary authority by order contained in memo no. 372(S) dated 18.1.2012 passed the order of punishment against the petitioner whereby a recovery of Rs. 3,60,333/- only has been sought from the petitioner; stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect has been passed with a further direction that the petitioner shall not be entitled for anything than what he has been paid under Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code during the period of suspension.

(viii) The petitioner preferred an appeal on 25.4.2012 to the appellate authority, the Secretary, road construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi but the said representation has not been disposed of as yet.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner:

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has questioned the order of punishment on the ground that the procedure as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 527

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHISujit Narayan Prasad, J.Binda Paswan son of late Nakat Paswan - PetitionerVersusThe State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Road construction Department – RespondentW.P.(S) No.2646 of 2012Decided On : 08-04-2026

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Binda Paswan son of late Nakat Paswan - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Road construction Department – Respondent
W.P.(S) No.2646 of 2012
Decided On : 08-04-2026