JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order No. 109/2019 as contained in Memo No. 383/Stha. dated 12.10.2019 by which, the proposed minor punishment of “Ban on promotion' was inflicted and he was also deprived from financial benefit thereof. He has also prayed for direction upon the respondents to revise the pension after giving 3 rd MACP promotion to the petitioner which is due on 6.4.2019 and release the differential amount of GPF, Gratuity, Earn Leave and other retiral benefits. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment which has been inflicted upon the petitioner vide punishment order dated 12.10.2019 as contained in memo No. 109/2019 by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, is major punishment. The petitioner has been debarred from promotion for the rest of his service career, which is a major punishment, but the respondents had termed the same to be a minor punishment, which is absolutely illegal. He further submits that the inquiry report has not been served to the petitioner nor any witnesses has been produce in support of the charge, which has been framed against the petitioner. He further adds that the inquiry report, which has been annexed tothe counter affidavit, suggests that the Enquiry Officer did not find the petitioner to be guilty. Once the Enquiry Officer has not found the petitioner guilty, no punishment could have been imposed upon him without following due process of law i.e. by giving notice to the petitioner, differing with the findings of the inquiry report. He further submits that the enquiry report is also perverse as in one hand, the Enquiry Officer has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not found guilty of the charge but thereafter has proposed the minor punishment. He also submits that when the charge has not been proved against the petitioner, no punishment could have been proposed. He also submits that the Enquiry Officer has got no authority proposing any punishment. 4. Counsel for the State submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had received the salary for the period, which he was in custody, which is a misconduct. A Departmental Proceeding was initiated and the enquiry report was submitted. He also submits that the Enquiry Officer has got no authority proposing any punishment. 4. Counsel for the State submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had received the salary for the period, which he was in custody, which is a misconduct. A Departmental Proceeding was initiated and the enquiry report was submitted. Though the Enquiry Officer has held that the petitioner cannot primarily be made responsible for the occurrence, but he has proposed a minor punishment. The second show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner in compliance with the principle of natural justice, thereafter, the impugned order of punishment was passed. He submits that there is no illegality in the entire process. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner was a government servant; he was working as Clerk (Nazir) in Thakur Gangti Block. He was an accused in G.R Case No. 1279 of 1999, which was pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka (Bihar). The case was under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier, the petitioner was taken in custody in this case on 19.3.2001 and was released on 24.3.2001. The allegation against the the petitioner is that he suppressed the aforesaid fact of remaining in custody and applied for leave for the aforesaid period, which was granted. It is also alleged that he also received the salary for the aforesaid period. Since the act of the petitioner is against Rule 99 of the Jharkhand Service Code, which provides that if a person is taken in custody, he needs to be suspended for the period, which he remains in custody, he was correctly proceeded against. The petitioner should not have been paid the salary nor he should have accepted the same. Thus the Departmental Proceeding was initiated. 6. In the Departmental Proceeding, Enquriy Officer was appointed to prove the charge. The charges were under three heads, which are as follows:- (1) The information was received from the Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Banka, vide Letter No. 496 dated 11.7.2001 that Sri Adhik Lal Kapri remained in the Banka Sub-Jail for a total period of six days from 19.3.2001 to 24.3.2001. He obtained causal leave for the said period and concealed the fact that he was automatically suspended during the custody period, withdrawing his salary and receiving payment. However, he was considered automatically suspended during the custody period. He obtained causal leave for the said period and concealed the fact that he was automatically suspended during the custody period, withdrawing his salary and receiving payment. However, he was considered automatically suspended during the custody period. There was no payment order from the Competent Authority (Deputy Commissioner) for the suspended period, nor was there a regulation order for the suspension period. (2) Shri Kapri obtained acceptance from the then Block Development Officer, Thakur Gangit for payment of his wages and other expenses for the said jail period, indicating a significant attempt to embezzle government funds. Payments for the custody period, which is automatically the suspension period was received without the approval of the Competent Authority. While employed as a Clerk, Sri Kapri took advantage of government procedures and received payments against the Rules, thereby benefited himself. (3) Shri Kapri is a public servant. Instead of forwarding his representations through the Controlling Officer, he has been submitting his applications directly to senior officials and other authorities, just like the general public, which is against established Government procedures. 7. The enquiry report has been brought on record in the counter affidavit, which is at Annexure-F. After going through the enquiry report, I find that no evidence was led by the Department to prove the charge. From the enquiry report, though some documents have been relied upon, but there is nothing to suggest that who are the person, who has proved the said documents. Even, in a Departmental Proceeding, though the Evidence Act is strictly not applicable, yet the documents which are presented and based on which the charge is said to be established, needs to be proved by oral evidence. In this case neither any person has proved. the document nor any oral evidence has been led to prove the charge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank , (2009) 2 SCC 570 has observed that it is necessary to prove the charge by adducing evidence. Para 14 of the aforesaid judgments 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. 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.” 8. The said judgment has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325. Paras 14 and 17 of the said judgment read as under. '14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi 11 , 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 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. 15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left. ........... 19. The judgment and decree passed against the respondent in Narinder Mohan Arya case [ (2006) 4 SCC 713 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 840] had attained finality. In the said suit, the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same was held to have been based on no evidence. The appellant therein in the aforementioned situation filed a writ petition questioning the validity of the disciplinary proceeding, the same was dismissed. This Court held that when a crucial finding like forgery was arrived at on evidence which is non est in the eye of the law, the civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. This Court emphasised that a finding can be arrived at by the enquiry officer if there is some evidence on record.' (Emphasis Supplied) 17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi and Nirmala J. Jhala, we are of the firm view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.” 9. In this case, no witnesses have been adduced, the Enquiry Proceeding is vitiated, so is the enquiry report. 10. Further, from the enquiry report, I find that the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner cannot be made primarily responsible for the act as he has already informed the authority. In this case, no witnesses have been adduced, the Enquiry Proceeding is vitiated, so is the enquiry report. 10. Further, from the enquiry report, I find that the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner cannot be made primarily responsible for the act as he has already informed the authority. It is the Block Development Officer who ignoring the Rules sanctioned the salary of the petitioner for the period in which, he was in custody. 11. After arriving at a conclusion, the Enquiry Officer further opined that the petitioner should be inflicted with minor punishment. This Court fails to understand when the Enquiry Officer has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be primarily held responsible for the misconduct, then how the Officer has proposed for infliction of any punishment. Further the Enquiry Officer has only to arrive at a finding as to whether the charge against the delinquent has been proved or not. He cannot propose any punishment, more so when charge was not proved. The nature of punishment, which is to be inflicted, is the prerogative of the Disciplinary Authority. 12. It is also to be noted that the impugned order of punishment was passed on 12.10.2019, but the petitioner has superannuated on 31.8.2019. Thus, on the date of order of punishment, no employer- employee relationship between the petitioner and the State existed. When there is no employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the Sate and in absence of any rules, no punishment could have been inflicted. The counsel for the respondents admits that there is no rule to punish an employee after his superannuation. 13. Considering the aforesaid discussions, this application stands allowed. Consequently, the order dated 109/2019 as contained in Memo dated 12.10.2019 is quashed and set aside . The petitioner is entitled for consequential relief. So far as benefits of MACP is concerned, he is at liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, claiming the same. If any representation is filed by the petitioner within four weeks before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, the same should be disposed by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks thereafter. The reasoned and speaking order should also be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. 15th September, 2025.