2025:JHHC:15878 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3357 of 2015 --------- Abhay Kumar Sinha son of late Laxmi Narayan Sinha resident Charnadih, Latehar P.O., P.S. & District-Latehar ....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Project Building Govt of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa Dist Ranchi 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamu-Division, Medininagar, P.O. & P.S.- Medininagar, Dist.-Palamau. 4. The District Education Officer, Latehar, P.O., P.S. & District- Latehar 5. District Superintendent of Education, Latehar, P.O., P.S. & District- Latehar ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shray Mishra, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-I --------- 12/Dated: 11.06.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order dated 08.04.2015; whereby a punishment in terms of ‘stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect’ and ‘only subsistence allowance shall be paid for the period of suspension’ had been passed by the 3rd Respondent i.e., Regional Deputy Director of Education Palamu, Medininagar. 3. The brief facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. An inspection was conducted by the 3rd respondent and vide Memo No. 18 dated 08.01.2015 inspection report was issued; whereby it was found that 10 claims relating to pension of retired teachers was pending. Thereafter, the 3rd Respondent issued Memo No.59 2025:JHHC:15878 2 dated 23.01.2015, whereby the Petitioner was suspended and subjected to the departmental proceeding on the charge of lingering the claim of retired teachers and also on the ground of non-compliance of the order dated 08.01.2015. Pursuant thereto; a detailed reply was filed by the Petitioner vide letter dated 21.02.2015. However, as per the petitioner, the same was rejected without any merit and the 4th Respondent was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who without following the principles of natural justice; only on the basis report and the documents in his possession, proved the charge. Thereafter, second show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner, to which he gave a detailed reply vide Annexure-7. However, without considering the reply, a punishment has been imposed. Though, the Petitioner has represented the superior authority by filing representation/application to re-consider the order of punishment, but the same went in vain. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has made following submissions: I. The enquiry officer did not follow the proper procedure and did not exhibit the documents which were in his possession. As a matter of fact, none of the documents were proved and the petitioner was not given any hearing. The entire enquiry report is based on few letters/report but the same was not proved; as such, the same is bad in law. II. The disciplinary authority has simply noted down the facts 2025:JHHC:15878 3 and passed the impugned order, which is against the settled principal laid down in the case of Kranti Associates. III. The Petitioner has taken specific stand in the reply to the second show cause notice, but the same was not considered and was brushed aside without giving any finding in either of the grounds. IV. Even on the representation in form of appeal (Annexure-9) which was filed by the Petitioner; nothing has been done. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents relies upon the counter affidavit and submits that the Petitioner without availing alternative remedy filed this appeal; as such, the same is not maintainable. He further relied upon paragraph 10 to 15 of the counter affidavit. The same is extracted hereinbelow: “10. That it is stated that an inspection was conducted by the then Regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamau in the office of District Education Officer, Latehar, upon inspection it was found that due to laches and fault on part of the petitioner several matter with regard to payment of retiral dues of teachers were pending. 11. That it is stated that on the basis of the enquiry report a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and memo of charge has been issued vide memo number 113 dated 09.02.2015. 12. That upon getting memo of charge, the petitioner has submitted his reply to District Education Officer, Latehar who was the Enquiry Officer. 13. That after receiving the reply of the petitioner, enquiry report was submitted where in the petitioner had been found guilty of the charges leveled against him. 14. That thereafter a second show cause has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner accordingly submitted a reply which was not found satisfactory. 15. That in such circumstances, the order of punishment has been issued vide memo no. 316 dated 08.04.2015, which has been issued after affording amply opportunity to the petitioner.” 6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein, specifically the impugned order of punishment, this court is having no hesitation in holding that the 2025:JHHC:15878 4 same is a non-speaking order. As a matter of fact, the disciplinary authority had only mentioned the fact of the case and without considering either of the stands taken by the petitioner in his reply to the second show cause notice, passed the impugned order of punishment. For brevity the entire impugned order is quoted hereinbelow: “ कायाŊलय आदेश ŵी अभय कु मार िसɎा िलिपक कायाŊलय िजला िशƗा अधीƗक, लातेहार को सेवा िनवृत िशƗकों के मामले को लİɾत रखने, सेवा िनवृȅ लाभो से िशƗकों को वंिचत रखने, अनावʴक िवलɾ करना तथा अनुकɼा के आधार पर िनयुİƅ के मामले को लİɾत रखना तथा आिŵत को परेशान करना इȑािद आरोपों के कारण कायाŊलय ǒापांक 59 िदनांक 23.01.2015 Ȫारा िनलंिबत था। िजला िशƗा पदािधकारी लातेहार को आरोपों की जाँच हेतु संचालन पदािधकारी िनयुƅ िकया गया था। संचालन पदािधकारी के Ȫारा उनके पũांक 264 िदनांक 25.03.2015 Ȫारा जाँच Ůितवेदन कायाŊलय को भेजा गया है। जाँच Ůितवेदन मŐ अंिकत िकया गया है िक आरोप Ůमािणत है। कायाŊलय पũांक 282 िदनांक 25.03.2015 Ȫारा जाँच Ůितवेदन को संलư कर आरोपी िलिपक से िȪतीय कारण पृDžा की गई। ŵी अभय कु मार िसɎा Ȫारा िदनांक 07.04.2015 को िनबंिधत डाक से िȪतीय कारण पृDžा का उȅर भेजा गया है। इस पर सʄक िवचार करते Šए िनɻांिकत लघु दǷ के साथ िवभागीय कायŊवाही समाɑ करते Šए इɎŐ िनलंबन से मुƅ िकया जाता है:- (1) एक वेतन वृİȠ असंचयी Ůभाव से रोकी जाती है। (2) िनलंबन अविध मŐ माũ जीवन िनवाŊह भȅा देय होगा। ŵी अभय कु मार िसɎा को Ůाथिमक िशƗक िशƗा महािवȨालय, लातेहार मŐ पद˕ािपत िकया जाता है िकȶु वेतन भुगतान अनपुİ˕ित िववरणी के आधार पर िजला िशƗा अधीƗक, लातेहार के कायाŊलय से देय होगा। यह ʩव˕ा अ˕ायी है। ˕ापना सिमित की अगली बैठक मŐ पद˕ापन के संबंध मŐ अंितम ŝप से िनणŊय िलया जाएगा। ह०/- खगे᭠ᮤ कुमार ᭃेᮢीय िशᭃा उप िनदेशक, पलामू ᮧम᭛डल मेᳰदनीनगर। ” 7. Now, the matter is no more res integra that any quasi- judicial authority has to give reasons in passing any order. In the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others1 refer para-47 which is quoted hereinbelow: “47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must 1 (2010) 9 SCC 496 2025:JHHC:15878 5 also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor.) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain EHRR at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”.” 8. It further appears from the enquiry report that the documents, which has been taken into consideration by the I.O. has not been exhibited in a sense that nothing has been proved. In the case on State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Saroj 2025:JHHC:15878 6 Kumar Sinha2 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Inquiry officer should not act as an agent of the department, rather he should act as an Independent Adjudicator. For brevity para-28 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department / disciplinary authority / Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.” 9. At the cost of repetition, when the Petitioner has taken all these stands in the reply to the second show cause notice; none of the grounds raised by the petitioner in his reply to the notice has been considered; as such, the impugned order is bad in law and the same is quashed on the ground of non-compliance of principles of natural justice. The matter is remitted to the stage of enquiry with a direction to proceed in the case in accordance with law and following principles of natural justice and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove. 10. It is made clear that if the department does not pass a fresh order within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt / production of copy of this order; the entire consequential benefits, as the impugned order of punishment has been quashed; shall be paid to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the expiry 2 (2010) 2 SCC 772 2025:JHHC:15878 7 of the stipulated period. 11. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-