The High Court
Case Details
2025:JHHC:36238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3927 of 2021 ------ Sachitanand Choudhary, S/o Late Ram Bilas Choudhary, Retired Fisherman, District Fisheries Office, Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand, permanent resident of Mohalla Nurdiganj, Khangar Par, P.O. Madho Mills, P.S. Malsalami, Patna City, District Patna-800008, Bihar. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-Operative, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand. 2. The Director Fisheries, Jharkhand, Directorate of Fisheries, Near Batan Talab, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand. 3. The District Fisheries Officer-cum-the Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi, Near Doranda H.P.O., P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand. 4. The Assistant Director of Fisheries (Research), Sector-III, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand 5. The Deputy Director Fisheries, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi, Directorate of Fisheries, Near Batan Talab, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III ------ 16/ 03.12.2025 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has mainly prayed to quash the order as contained in Memo No.895 dated 28.05.2009 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition), by which after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner had been punished. 3. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner was appointed by the competent Authority on the 1 2025:JHHC:36238 sanctioned and vacant post of “Fisherman”. 3.1. On account of there being theft of some fishes, a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner and others. The other co- accused also named the petitioner to be one of the persons who was involved in the said occurrence. 3.2. The petitioner was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). The allegations against the petitioner as per the charge sheet are as follows:- “(i) Theft of Fishes :- On 05/06.04.2007, the petitioner was stealing fishes from the storage pond of the Fisheries Research Centre, located at Shalimar, in connivance with outsiders. (ii) Criminal conduct :- Stealing Government property and assisting in the theft constitutes criminal conduct. Unfit for Government service. (iii) Indiscipline :- Being involved in illegal activities like theft and voluntarily remaining absent from duty and absconding since 06.04.2007. (iv) Causing loss the Government revenue :- Causing loss to the Government revenue by stealing fish farmed by the Department.” 3.3. The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet denying all the allegations levelled against him. 3.4. An Enquiry Officer thereafter was appointed and the enquiry report was submitted, which is at Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 3.5. Considering the enquiry report and after issuance of the second show cause notice, the impugned order of punishment was 2 2025:JHHC:36238 passed. As per the impugned order dated 28.05.2009, the punishment order (amending the earlier departmental punishment) of the petitioner are as follows:- “(i) Shri Choudhary’s two increments are withheld with cumulative effect i.e. he will be entitled to the actual (withholding two increments from the salary to which he would have been entitled if he had not been suspended) pay and allowances from 18.08.2008 i.e. the date of release from suspension. (ii) No salary will be payable for the absconding period from 06.04.2007 to 04.07.2007. (iii) No financial benefit other than subsistence allowance will be payable to him during the suspension period (excluding the period of absconding) i.e. from 05.07.2008 to 17.08.2008. (iv) This order is purely temporary and any part of it may be relaxed or revoked partially or fully without any prior notice.” 4. 5. The aforesaid order of punishment is under challenge. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that there is no evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner. He submits that in absence of any legal evidence, the petitioner could not have been punished. He also submits that the punishment order has been kept temporary by the respondent, which is evident from clause-(iv) of the order which gives power to the Disciplinary Authority to modify the punishment order, that means to relax and revoke also, without any prior notice. He further submits that he had prayed on several occasions to cancel the same but the respondents have not done so. He lastly submits that in the criminal case, the petitioner has been 3 2025:JHHC:36238 acquitted. 6. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State submits that in the departmental proceeding, during enquiry it was found that the petitioner was involved in theft, thus the impugned order of punishment was imposed. The petitioner also remained absent from 06.04.2007 to 04.07.2007 and that is the reason it was ordered that the petitioner will not be able to draw salary for the aforesaid period. 7. I have heard the parties and gone through the materials available on record along with the enquiry report. The enquiry report which is on record, does not suggest as to whether any witness was examined on behalf of the Department or not. To verify the correct fact, this Court requested learned counsel representing the respondent – State to go through the original file and assist this Court accordingly. After going through the original file, learned counsel representing the respondent-State submits that though there is reference of two persons, but admittedly they were not examined as witnesses in presence of the petitioner nor an opportunity of cross-examination was given to him. It was submitted by the respondent’s counsel that the petitioner did not also sought any leave to cross-examine them. 8. Any witness examined during the departmental proceeding must be examined in presence of the delinquent. The delinquent should be immediately given an opportunity to cross- examine the said witness. The delinquent-employee need not have to seek permission to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the 4 2025:JHHC:36238 prosecution. The right to cross-examination is inherent, which is not dependent on any application to be filed by the delinquent. Depriving the opportunity of cross-examination and also if any witness is examined in absence of the delinquent employee, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 9. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses nor any witness was examined in presence of this petitioner. On this score alone the entire enquiry gets vitiated. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, has held that there must be some legal evidence either oral or documentary, to prove the guilt of the delinquent-employee. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function. He has to analyse the documents and the evidence to arrive at a correct conclusion. He cannot take into consideration the irrelevant facts, nor the burden can be shifted. 11. In this case, since the enquiry was conducted without providing opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and further from the report, I find that there is no proper enquiry conducted, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. 12. The impugned order as contained in Memo No.895 dated
Decision
28.05.2009 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition), is quashed and set aside. 13. So far as the period which according to the respondents, the petitioner remained absent, liberty is given to the respondents 5 2025:JHHC:36238 to consider the aforesaid period and to take a decision with respect to the aforesaid period, after giving notice to the petitioner. The consequential benefits should be disbursed to the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner should communicate this order to the respondents. 14. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands allowed. 03rd December, 2025 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 06.12.2025 (ANANDA SEN, J.) 6