RAM BAHADUR RAI, S/o Late Ram Vyas Rai, Resident of Krishnapuri Colony Ward No-32 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Drinking water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand
Case Details
2025:JHHC:35548 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5329 of 2023 ---- RAM BAHADUR RAI, S/o Late Ram Vyas Rai, Resident of Krishnapuri Colony Ward No-32, Near Kedia Petrol Pump, P.O. & P.S. Chas, … … Petitioner District- Bokaro. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Drinking water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand, at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi. 3. Engineer in Chief, Drinking water and sanitation Department Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi. 4. Joint Secretary (Prabandhak Koshang), Drinking water and sanitation Department Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 5. Superintending Engineer, Drinking water and sanitation Department Government of Jharkhand, Chaibasa Circle, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District- Chaibasa. 6. Executive Engineer Drinking water and sanitation Department Chaibasa Division, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District- Chaibasa. 7. Assistant Engineer, Nowamundi, Sub-Division Department of Drinking Water & Sanitation, Nowamundi, P.O. & P.S. Nowamundi, District Chaibasa. 8. The State Bihar, through Secretary Public Heath Engineering Department Government of Bihar, P.O. & P.S. Sachivalaya, District- Patna. 9. Joint Secretary Public Health Engineers Department Government of Bihar, P.O. & P.S. Sachivalaya, District- Patna. … … Respondents ----
Legal Reasoning
“13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory. Reference in this regard may be held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank9 and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat.10 4 2025:JHHC:35548 14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi11, this Court held that mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof reads as under:— “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 the disciplinary treated 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 FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.”” to be evidence in 8. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the fact that there are no evidences on record to prove the allegation levelled against the petitioner and also the principle of natural justice has not been followed by the respondent authorities while conducting the departmental proceeding, furthermore, depriving the petitioner of an opportunity to be heard, the impugned punishment and appellate order are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits. The respondents will ensure payment of the same within eight weeks. 9. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by the Amicus – Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, and recommends the High Court Legal Services Committee, to pay him appropriately. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 12th November, 2025 HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Prashant. NAFR Uploaded on 01.12.2025 5
Arguments
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Amicus Curiae Mr. Ram Bahadur Rai, (petitioner present in person) For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C)-II Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, AC to GA, Bihar Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, AC to SC (L&C)-II Mr. S.P. Roy, GA (Bihar) ---- 1 2025:JHHC:35548 12th November, 2025 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- “I. For issuance of an appropriate writ /writ (S) order/order (S) directions/direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to quash the suspension order of the petitioner, passed by Under Secretary, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder the respondents suspended the petitioner from his service on 16-01-2007 as contained in Annexure- 3 without any rhyme and reason and without giving any proper notice/without hearing the petitioner. II. For issuance of an order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs commanding upon to respondents to quash the order of punishment, awarded to the petitioner by the Engineer in Chief, vide letter no. 5113 dated 23-12-2009, whereby and whereunder the awarded 3 punishments as contained Annexure-.9 (i) Petitioner was suspended and was allow for subsistence allowance. (ii) Petitioner was not to be given any increment during his 1st of the service. (iii) Petitioner shall not be entitled for posting in the field work. III. For issuance of an order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs commanding upon to respondents for further to quash the letter no. 5143, dated 24/12/2009 whereby and whereunder the Engineer in Chief has ordered for minimum pay for rest of his service as contained as Annexure-10. IV. For further issuance of an order/orders, direction/ directions, writ/writs commanding upon to respondents to give all the consequential benefits including the arrears of the salary with 18% per annum interest till 2023, for the illegal suspension done by the Respondent causing great hardship to the petitioner. V. For issuance of an order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs commanding upon to respondents to pay the interest of 18% which has accrued till 11-02-17 on the late payment of the salary on the increment of the salary of the petitioner, which was paid late by the Respondent. VI. For issuance of an appropriate writ /writ(S) order/order(S) directions/direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to revoke of the illegal suspension and to give the arrear of salary from the date of illegal suspension done by the respondent to the petitioner. issuance of an appropriate writ /writ(S) VII. For order/order (S) directions/direction(s) commanding upon the respondents for adjustment of Rs. 23,516.14/- which 2 2025:JHHC:35548 has illegally been deducted from the petitioner’s salary from 1994, @ 500/- per months. issuance of an appropriate writ /writ(S) VIII. For order/order(S) directions/direction(s) commanding upon the for respondents to pay compensation for their illegal acts done to harass the petitioner and put the petitioner under illegal suspension.” 3. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer at Nowamundi in Chaibasa Division at Chaibasa when he was transferred to Medininagar by notification dated 19.05.2006. The petitioner had challenged the transfer, before the Hon’ble Court vide W.P.S No. 3353 of 2006 on ground that the same was issued by way of punishment but the said writ application was dismissed and petitioner went to his place of posting earlier for handing over the charge but the new incumbent didn’t take over the charge. The petitioner had received letter dated 03.11.2006, issued under the signature of Executive Engineer Drinking Water and Sanitation Division Medininagar, asking to hand over the charge of the post of Junior Engineer in Chaibasa Division. Later on, the petitioner while discharging his duty in Medininagar was put under suspension vide memo No. 264 dated 16.01.2007 and his headquarter was fixed as Medininagar Circle. The basis of his suspension was letter No. 212 dated 09.12.2006 wherein the Superintending Engineer found irregularities on part of the petitioner. Finally, the Engineer in Chief vide letter No. 5113 dated 23.12.2009 and letter No. 5143 dated 24.12.2009 awarded the punishments to the petitioner. The petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority in relation to the punishments but the same was dismissed. 4. Learned Amicus representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was willing to hand over the charge of post of Junior Engineer to the new incumbent but the incumbent himself was non willing to take charge. The learned counsel states that the petitioner filed representation dated 28.11.2006 before the Executive Engineer Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Chaibasa and even wrote letters dated 09.01.2007 and 11.01.2007, requesting to ask the incumbent to take charge from him. The learned counsel submits 3 2025:JHHC:35548 that there are no documents available to prove the time, date and misbehavior done by the petitioner. The learned counsel also submits that the respondent authorities with malafide intention also stopped the payment for 8th & 9th May 2006 and the salary for 15.06.2013 to 19.06.2013 when the petitioner was on sanctioned leave. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that on completion of the departmental proceeding, all charges were proved against the petitioner and hence, punishments were imposed. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner only after his superannuation from service has raised all these issues claiming all consequential benefits. The learned counsel states that all due process was taken into consideration before passing of punishment order in the departmental proceeding. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, I find that the departmental proceeding was initiated but the same was decided ex-parte and the petitioner was never given a chance to appear before the committee and place his defence. The respondent authorities made enquiry but there are no documents available to substantiate the allegations made against the petitioner. Hence, there is no evidence on record against the petitioner. The witnesses had been examined during the proceeding but opportunity to cross examine was not given to the petitioner. It is very clear that the petitioner has been treated unfair and has been deprived of principles of natural justice. 7. It is an established principle of law that no one can be punished in a departmental proceeding without evidence. Disciplinary actions must be based on some form of evidence, and on mere accusation no one can be punished. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P.” reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 has held as under: