The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4037 of 2019 ------ Rajesh Kumar, aged about 51+ years, S/o Late Mahesh Ram, Flat No. 202, Shiv Apartment, Shivpuri (Hinoo), P.O.-Hinoo, P.S.- Doranda, Dist.- Ranchi, Pin-834002. -Versus - … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, At-Project Building (HEC premises), P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. 3. The Joint Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Dept., At- Project Building (HEC Premises), P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, At- Project Building (HEC premises), P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. ------ ... … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Praveen Akhauri, S.C. Mines-I : Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, A.C. to S.C. Mines-I ------ 13/16.10.2024 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner Rajesh Kumar has filed this writ application for quashing of impugned order of punishment imposed upon him vide no. 8692 dated 01.10.2015 (Annexure-9), whereby and wherein the petitioner was reversed from the post of Section Officer to the post of Assistant grade and consequent there upon his salary was lowered at the lowest stage of Assistant grade. 3. It is alleged that when the petitioner was working as Section Officer in Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, during the relevant period a file which was in his custody was placed before his superior. It transpired that certain pages of the file were removed by the petitioner. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was initiated. The petitioner was held guilty in the departmental proceeding. Finally, punishment was imposed upon him by reversing his rank from Section Officer to Assistant and by lowering of his salary. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the entire departmental proceeding, the Enquiry Officer has not produced any witness in support of its case against the petitioner. It was further submitted that certain documents were produced however the content of these documents cannot be read as evidence as they have not been properly exhibited in the departmental proceeding. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Others as reported in [(2008) SCC OnLine SC 1947] wherein, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that; “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 merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the F.I.R. which could not have been treated as evidence.” 5. It is admitted case that no witness was examined during the enquiry. The enquiry officer had come to the conclusion regarding the guilt of this petitioner and accordingly punishment was imposed upon the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Rajit Singh passed in [Civil Appeal Nos. 2049-2050 of 2022] wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that; “8. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal also observed that the enquiry proceedings were against -2- the principles of natural justice in as much as the documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. As per the settled proposition of law, in a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and the matter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of principles of natural justice is noticed and the enquiry has to be proceeded further after furnishing the necessary documents mentioned in the charge sheet, which are alleged to have not been given to the delinquent officer in the instant case. In the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, which was also pressed into service on behalf of the appellants before the High Court, it is observed in paragraph 16 as under:- 16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727), Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for Girls [(2002) 10 SCC 293], U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264] and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC 30].” 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and the law laid down by the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, it is evident that in the departmental proceeding witnesses are required to be examined to prove the contents of the document. In this case this procedure has not been followed. However, mere fact that there were laches on the part of the enquiry officer in conducting enquiry did not render the entire departmental proceeding de hors. Accordingly, holding the petitioner guilty in the departmental proceeding and subsequent punishment imposed upon him alongwith the impugned Appellate Order are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to conduct the enquiry from the point it stood vitiated. It is further directed that the respondents will conclude the departmental proceeding expeditiously, preferably within -3- four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. 9. This writ application is allowed.
Decision
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Rahul/- (Ambuj Nath, J.) -4-