Niwas Sharma @ Ashok Sharma, son of late Kameshwar Sharma, resident of Jarina Villa v. ………
Case Details
2025:JHHC:34771 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 6932 of 2017 ------- Niwas Sharma @ Ashok Sharma, son of late Kameshwar Sharma, resident of Jarina Villa, Near S.P. Kothi, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Hazaribag Town, District Hazaribag. Versus ………..Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. 3. The Inspector General of Prison, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. 4. The Assistant Inspector General of Prison, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. 5. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. ……….. Respondents ----
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to GP-II ---- 11/ 20.11.2025 The instant application has been preferred for the following prayers: “A. For quashing the order contained in Memo No. (Ann-8) 5666 dated 17.10.2017 the issued under Respondent Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Govt. of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder, the Statutory Appeal preferred by the Petitioner as against the order of penalty dated 08.10.2015 has been rejected mechanically without considering and addressing the issues raised by the Petitioner in his Appeal. the signature of B. For quashing the notification as contained in (Annex-6) Memo No. 2539 dated 08.10.2015 whereby and whereunder the Petitioner in a most arbitrary manner and in violation of Principle of Natural Justice has been imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. C. For quashing of the entire departmental proceeding contemplated against the Petitioner for non est cause of action and 1 2025:JHHC:34771 Articles of Charge imputed against him dated 11.11.2014 issued under the signature of the Inspector General, Prison. D. For a direction upon the respondent authorities to consequently reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and continuity in service for the interregnum period.” 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as Kakshpal under the respondent-Department on 13.07.1983. During the period of his service, a memo of charge was issued against him for unauthorized absence and after a detailed enquiry, the petitioner has been punished by the order of dismissal. Subsequently, the petitioner also preferred an Appeal which was decided against him and thereafter, he also preferred Review and even the Reviewing Authority has sustained the order of dismissal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner amongst other grounds on perversity of the order, has made two submissions: i) No oral evidence has been adduced in order to prove the charge; ii) There is no finding of wilful absence. 4. In support of 1st submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.1 Similarly, in support of 2nd submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed in the case Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar2 and Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr.3 . 5. Learned counsel contended that the law is now no more res- integra that even in an ex-parte enquiry, oral evidence has to be adduced and the Inquiry Officer cannot act as an Agent and Representative of the Department. He further submits that it is also a well settled law in departmental proceeding; where allegation of unauthorized absence is made out then the Disciplinary Authority must prove that the absence was wilful. Relying upon the aforesaid admitted fact, he submits that the order of punishment may be