IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1721 of 2018 Rabindra Nath Panda, son of late Ram Krishna Panda, resident of Rani Bagan, Bariatu, P.O and P.S. Bariatu, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Joint Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar. 5. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar. ….... Respondents. ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): M/s A.K. Sahani and Vikesh Kumar, Advocates. For State of Jharkhand Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, aC to AAG-II For State of Bihar: Mr. Ranjit Kumar, AC to GA, Bihar. ------ 14/11.02.2025: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the Resolution issued under Memo No. 1345 dated 19.2.2018 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been imposed a punishment of withholding of 5% of pension for a period of five years. The proceeding initially started under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, later on converted under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. 3. The short question which falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether without there being any evidence, solely based on some reports and opinion, the petitioner can be punished or not. 4. Annexure- E to the counter affidavit is the enquiry report, based on which, the punishment order has been passed. From perusal of the entire enquiry report, I find that not even a single witness/oral evidence has been examined in this case. The case is based on the documents. Even the documents needs to be proved. Even if the punishment is based on some documents, it is necessary to prove those documents through oral evidence. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vrs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 has held that in paragraph 14 has held 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 treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the document and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.” 6. The aforesaid view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been reflected in the judgment of State of UP Vrs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 30 has held that a departmental enquiry against a government servant cannot be treated to be a casual exercise. The enquiry proceeding also cannot be conducted with close mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only the justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. Fair treatment should be given to the delinquent employee. It is necessary to quote 30 of the said judgment which reads as follows:- “30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.” 7. In a very recent judgment in the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 873, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principle. 8. The impugned order in this case can be quashed on this ground itself as no witnesses have been examined. 9. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the punishment order as contained in Memo No. 1345 dated 19.2.2018 is set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, which has already been deducted from the pensionary benefit of the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J. ) 2.