The High Court
Case Details
2025:JHHC:36732 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.6983 of 2025 ------ Prabhat Kumar, son of late Mahavir Prasad, resident of Flat No.202, Nikunj Apartment, Patel Nagar, Road No.15, Hatia, P.O. + P.S. Hatia, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834003. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment & Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O. + P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests-cum-Head of the Forest Force, Jharkhand, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O. + P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002. 3. The Chief Conservator of Forests (Non-Gazetted), Jharkhand, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O. + P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002. 4. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh, P.O. + P.S. + District Hazaribagh-825301. 5. The Conservator of Forest, Territorial Circle, Chatra, P.O. + P.S. + District Chatra,825401. 6. The Divisional Forest Officer, Chatra South Forest Division, Chatra, P.O. + P.S. + District Chatra-825401. … … Respondents ------
Legal Reasoning
Further, a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.190 of 2023 (The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar Singh), vide judgment dated 05.06.2025, while referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondent – State. 3 2025:JHHC:36732 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the case of this petitioner is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, and the judgment of this Court passed in L.P.A. No.190 of 2023 (The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar Singh). 8. The impugned Memo of Charge as contained in Office
Arguments
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to GA-I ------ 02/ 08.12.2025 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction for quashing and setting aside the Memo of Charges issued vide Office Order No. 05, dated 30.01.2019 of the Conservator of Forests- Disciplinary Authority, Territorial Circle, Chatra (Annexure-1); Inquiry Report dated 09.11.2019 of the Assistant Conservator of Forests-cum-Enquiry Officer, Chatra North Forest Division, Chatra (Annexure-2); and the subsequent Final Penalty Order, Office Order No.13, dated 17.07.2020 read with Memo No.994, dated 17.07.2020 of the Conservator of the 1 2025:JHHC:36732 Forests-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Territorial Circle, Chatra (Annexure-4), imposing a major penalty on the Petitioner. And, B. Direct the respondent authorities to forthwith restore all his consequential benefits, pay, increments, and promotions, treating the entire period since the imposition of the penalty as continuity in service, in accordance with Rule 12(3) or 13(3) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 (Annexure-12), as applicable.” 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. Since this is a writ of certiorari and the impugned order speaks for itself, I am not calling for the counter affidavit. 4. The petitioner has challenged the order of penalty inflicted on him in a disciplinary proceeding. The evidence relied upon is only the official documents, which are apparent from the last page of the enquiry report. From the enquiry report, it is evident that no witness was ever examined. The contents of the documentary evidence were also not formally proved by any oral evidence, in the disciplinary proceeding. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, has laid down the law by holding that the departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding and the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. It is the duty of the Enquiry Officer to arrive at the finding of guilt against the delinquent officer based on evidence which is duly collected. If the 2 2025:JHHC:36732 Enquiry Officer wants to get the charge proved based on some documents, those documents must be proved by some witnesses. Though, the Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable so far as departmental proceeding is concerned but when a document needs to be looked into, it has to be proved by an oral evidence. Witnesses must be examined to prove the said documents. Merely tendering of the document and not proving the contents thereof is not sufficient to prove the charge in a departmental proceeding. The document itself cannot be treated to be an evidence until and unless the same is proved. It is necessary to quote para-14 of the judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), which reads as hereunder:- “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 FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.” 6.
Decision
Order No. 05, dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) to the writ petition and the impugned subsequent Final Penalty Order as contained in Office Order No.13, dated 17.07.2020 read with Memo No.994, dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), are hereby set aside. The petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 08th December, 2025 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 11.12.2025 4