2025:JHHC:24564 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 6996 of 2019 ------- Ramesh Prasad Singh, son of late Pasupati Singh, resident of village Sultani, P.O. Babhandih, P.S. Hariharganj, Sultani, District Palamau. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnnathpur, District Ranchi. 2. Commissioner, Palamau Division, at Medini Nagar, P.O. Medini Nagar, P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, at Medini Nagar, P.O. Medini Nagar, P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau. 4. Deputy Development Commissioner, Palamau at Medini Nagar, P.O. Medini Nagar, P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau. 5. Block Development Officer, Pipra, Palamau, P.O. Pipra, P.S. Pipra, District Palamau. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioners : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Amrita Banerjee, AC to GP-I ---- 03/ 19.08.2025 The instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 01.04.2019 (Annexure-9), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, whereby the service of the petitioner to the post of Panchayat Secretary has been terminated. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 08.11.2019 (Annexure-10), issued by the Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medini Nagar, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of termination dated 01.04.2019, has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made that upon quashing the aforesaid orders, a direction be given to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Panchayat Sewak. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Sewak/Secretary vide order dated 13.10.1999 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, and was posted in Chhattarpur Divison, 2025:JHHC:24564 2 Hariharganj and since then, he was working efficiently and diligently without any complaint whatsoever. 3. Thereafter, the Deputy Development Director, Palamau vide letter dated 03.10.2016 directed Sub-Divisional Officer, Chhattarpur, Palamau, to conduct an enquiry for irregularities being committed in construction of Dobha in Panchayat Madhubana, Division Pipra. Upon receipt of such direction, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chhattarpur, Palamau, vide letter dated 07.10.2016 submitted an enquiry report in the said matter after conducting spot verification, wherein it was found that Dobha was not constructed in the land of concerned beneficiaries namely Pramod Yadav, Ramashray Yadav, Sinod Rajwar and Ram Prasad. However, amount for construction of the Dobha was withdrawn by the delinquent employees in the name of construction of aforesaid Dobha. Thereafter, the Deputy Development Commissioner- cum-District Programme Coordinator, Palamau, vide order dated 10.12.2016 fastened proportionate liability upon concerned employees including the petitioner for irregularities committed in construction of Dobha which resulted in loss of public money to the tune of Rs.1,78,023/-. Further, the petitioner was directed by the Block Development Officer, Pipra, Palamau, to file show cause in relation to financial irregularities committed in construction of Dobha. Accordingly, the petitioner vide letter dated 17.03.2017 filed show cause denying the allegation stating therein that payments were made to the workers on the basis of measurement book. The Block Development Officer, Pipra, Palamau, vide letter dated 18.04.2017 forwarded the show cause filed by the petitioner along with the other delinquent employees to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Palamau, for taking further action against them. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Palamau, vide letter dated 03.05.2017 passed an order directing the concerned authorities to take appropriate steps against the delinquent employees, wherein direction was given 2025:JHHC:24564 3 to forward Prapatra 'K' against the petitioner in departmental proceeding. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the Director, District Rural Development Authority, Palamau, who was the Conducting Officer vide letter dated 16.07.2018 informed the Block Development Officer, Palamau, that the petitioner has been directed to produce evidence in relation to the charges levelled in Prapatra 'K' against the petitioner on the next date of hearing which is fixed on 27.07.2018. Accordingly, the petitioner vide letter dated 27.07.2018 filed a reply to the Director, District Rural Development Authority, Palamau, wherein the petitioner clarified that he has no role in identification of land on which a Dobha is to be constructed and further payments were deposited in the bank accounts of the worker, therefore, it is not a case of financial irregularity as payments have been made in the bank account of the worker. The Conducting Officer-cum- Director, District Rural Development Authority, Palamau, submitted report dated 24.10.2018 in relation to memo of charge (Prapatra 'K') issued to the petitioner, wherein the Conducting Officer found that irregularities were committed in construction of four Dobhas and withdrawal of money for the same. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, vide letter dated 18.01.2019 issued second show cause upon the petitioner to which the petitioner vide letter dated 23.01.2019 filed a reply denying the allegation of being involved in financial irregularity. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, contained in memo no. 188/Gram Panchayat dated 01.04.2019 terminated the services of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Sewak on the basis of remarks of the Conducting Officer. The Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medini Nagar, vide order dated 08.11.2019 contained in memo no. 744/Medini Nagar dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 01.04.2019. Hence, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from procedural irregularities, inasmuch as, there is no 2025:JHHC:24564 4 oral evidence in order to prove the documentary evidence. He further draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-4, which is the charge-sheet and its Enclosure-3 (page 32 to the writ application), which deals with the details of evidence which clearly indicates that no oral evidence has been adduced by the respondents in order to prove the charge. 6. Learned counsel further draws attention towards page 24 of the writ application, wherein the Inquiry Officer has given the report. Subsequently, a 2nd show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner which he replied vide Annexure-8; however, the impugned order has been passed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also assails the impugned order on the question of parity, inasmuch as, for the same and similar allegation the Mukhiya of the village was also suspended, however, no proceeding has been initiated against him. 8. Ms. Amrita Banerjee, AC to learned GP-I representing the respondent-State opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that from a bare perusal of the impugned order it would appear that the evidences have been taken in the enquiry proceeding. 9. However, Ld. Counsel could not dispute the fact that any enquiry done prior to issuance of charge-sheet has no basis and admittedly; the documents which has been annexed as Annexure-3 (page 32 of the writ application) has not proved by oral evidence. 10. Law is well settled as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satyendra Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.1 wherein it has been held that the evidence recorded in preliminary enquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant application deserves to be allowed on the ground of procedural irregularities and accordingly, the impugned orders dated 01.04.2019 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 2025:JHHC:24564 5 (Annexure-9) and dated 08.11.2019 (Annexure-10) are hereby quashed and set aside. 12. Normally, in such type of cases of procedural irregularities, the matter should have been remitted back to the concerned authority to rectify the procedural irregularities; however, since the petitioner had already retired long before and as such, no fruitful purpose would suffice by remitting the case to the concerned authority and even otherwise, the charge has been proved only on the basis letters given by the authorities in preliminary enquiry where petitioner was never called for to give his explanation. 13. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. 14. The consequential benefits shall be given to the petitioner after proper calculation and verification of the records within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal