2025:JHHC:19136-DB -1 of 11- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 139 of 2025 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Road Construction Department, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town & District Ranchi. 2. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town & District Ranchi. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town & District Ranchi. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Daltonganj, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau. 5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Garhwa, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa. ... Appellants Versus Kumod Kumar Thakur, son of Late Kamlakant Thakur, resident of C/o Mithilesh Kumar Jha, Kutchery Road, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa 822114 ... Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC. (L&C)-I. For Respondent : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate. Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate. --------- C.A.V. On: 07.07.2025 Pronounced On: 15.07.2025 Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dt. 12.04.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7051 of 2017. The Background facts 2. The said Writ petition was filed by the respondent herein, challenging the order dt. 13.11.2017 issued by the 3rd appellant terminating the services of the respondent without holding a regular departmental enquiry. 2025:JHHC:19136-DB -2 of 11- 3. The respondent had been appointed on temporary basis on 30th March, 2000 and later his services were regularized on 16.10.2007 and he thus became a regular employee of the first appellant-Department. He was also granted benefit of M.A.C.P. by an order of the Screening Committee on 27.02.2016. 4. He was issued a show cause notice on 09.12.2015. It is contended in the show cause notice that as per photo-copy of the service book received from the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, respondent was appointed vide office order No. 304, dt.30.03.2000, but the said letter could not be found during the investigation of the records, that in the Issue Register, the said office order was found to have been mentioned in the name of one Shankar Thakur and another Assistant Engineer, Anil Kumar Verma, and therefore, prima facie the appointment letter appears to be fake/bogus. A preliminary enquiry report was prepared without notice to the respondent and the said copy of the enquiry report dt. 25.08.2015 was enclosed to the show cause notice issued by the Engineer-in-Chief and the respondent’s explanation was sought. 5. The respondent in his explanation dt. 10.07.2017 also requested for supply of the Memo No. 304, dt. 30th March, 2000 allegedly issued in the name of Shri Shankar Thakur. He contended that he was appointed to the post of the Tracer (Anurekhak) by the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road zone, Chaibasa vide Letter No.304 dt. 30th March, 2000 and his next posting was done in Kolhan Vikash, Road Division, Chaibasa and the said division came to Garhwa as Road Division with all facilities in June, 2000. The 2025:JHHC:19136-DB -3 of 11- Respondent contended that his appointment letter has the signature of Shri T.N. Choudhary, the Head clerk In-charge of Kolhan Vikash, Road Division. He contended that he had received the Letter No. 304, dt. 30th March, 2000, which was issued in his name and a copy of the said letter, is before the appellants, but the Superintending Engineer has claimed that the letter was issued in the name of Shankar Thakur and the said letter is not before the appellants. He therefore, stated that the Superintending Engineer should obtain a copy of the said letter in the name of Shankar Thakur and take further decision. Other pleas were also raised. 6. But the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, without getting any disciplinary enquiry conducted against the respondent, held that the respondent had secured appointment on the basis of fake appointment letter and he is therefore, dismissed from service. He also held that the preliminary investigation report submitted by the Superintending Engineer showed that the appointment of the respondent was illegal and the defence of the respondent was not found satisfactory after due scrutiny. 7. Challenging the order of dismissal, the respondent filed W.P. (S) No.7051 of 2017 before this Court. 8. In the mean time the respondent had also filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 22.11.2017. 9. During the pendency of the said Writ petition, a direction was given by this Court to consider the appeal filed on 22.11.2017 filed by the respondent before the appellate authority. 2025:JHHC:19136-DB -4 of 11- 10. Thereafter, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 08.05.2019. 11. The respondent amended the Writ petition challenging the appellate order as well. 12. It was the contention of the counsel for the respondent before the learned Single Judge that a regular departmental enquiry as per Rule 17 of the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 was not held before passing the order of punishment of dismissal from service; the preliminary enquiry was conducted behind the back of the respondent, and the respondent was not allowed to participate in the same, and no witness was examined nor any document was proved in the preliminary enquiry. It is contended that both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority committed illegality in dismissing the respondent from service and also dismissing his appeal, and in fact, the appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Secretary of the Road Construction Department but the same was also decided by the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department while acting as the appellate authority. 13. The appellants defended their action before the learned Single Judge and reiterated their stand that the appointment of the respondent was a backdoor appointment on the basis of a forged letter as per the preliminary enquiry. It was also contended that copy of the enquiry report was given to the respondent and he had also given his reply. It is contended that the disciplinary authority i.e. Engineer-in- Chief passed orders dismissing the respondent from service on the ground that the respondent had obtained appointment on the basis of a 2025:JHHC:19136-DB -5 of 11- forged letter. It was stated that the preliminary enquiry was conducted by the appellant-Department consisting of three members and they had found that the Memo No. 304 dt.30th March, 2000 relates to allotment of quarter to one Shankar Thakur and did not relate to the appointment of the respondent and therefore the Writ petition should be dismissed. Order of the learned Single Judge 14. The learned Single Judge noted that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants on 11.10.2019, it had been stated that the respondent was appointed on 01.03.1996 and thereafter the Superintending Engineer issued a Memo No. 304 dt. 30th March, 2000 appointing the Respondent on the post of ‘Anurekhak’ against a vacant post. Thereafter on 16.10.2007, the Respondent’s services were made permanent and it was also observed in the order of confirmation by the then Superintending Engineer that the services of the respondent were verified and he was paid salary from 01.05.2000 and a necessary entry was to be made in his service book. 15. The learned Single Judge also noted that the office order dt.27.02.2016 was issued granting to the respondent M.A.C.P. with effect from 30.04.2010 by the Screening Committee of Circle level. He also noted that in his reply dt.10.07.2017 to the show cause notice issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, the Respondent had requested for supply of the Memo No. 304 dt. 30th March, 2000 issued in the name of Shankar Thakur, but the same was not given and the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. 16. He also noted that the respondent had contended in the appeal before the Secretary, Road Construction Department on 22.11.2017 2025:JHHC:19136-DB -6 of 11- that regular departmental proceeding had not been conducted, list of witnesses were not provided and documents were not marked. 17. The learned Single Judge then held that the respondent’s services had been made permanent on 16.10.2007 and the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 provided the mechanism and the procedure for imposing major penalties and requires the holding of a disciplinary enquiry. 18. The learned Single Judge also noted that in the preliminary enquiry report, which was of only one page, it is noticed that the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Garhwa could not trace the office order vide Memo No. 304 dt. 30th March, 2000 in the said office and the dispatch register revealed that such a Memo was issued in the name of Shankar Thakur and Anil Kumar Verma and therefore, prima facie it was opined that the appointment letter of the respondent appears to be forged. 19. He also noted that under Rule 17 (4) of the above Rules, it was the duty of the disciplinary authority to deliver to the respondent copy of the articles of charge, statement of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior, list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained, and then require the respondent to submit written statement of his defence. He noted that neither the articles of charges nor the list of document or the list of witnesses were prepared and served on the respondent, and even the respondent was not asked of his right to be heard in person or to file a written statement in support of his defence. Even the copy of the Memo No. 304, dt. 30th 2025:JHHC:19136-DB -7 of 11- March, 2000 issued in the name of Shankar Thakur was not furnished to the respondent before passing the impugned order dt.13.11.2017. 20. The learned Single Judge then relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi-Vs.-Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570, where the Supreme Court held that the order of disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority have to be supported by reasons, materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved, and the decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible though the Evidence Act may not be applicable but the principles of natural justice are. 21. The learned Single Judge noted that the Supreme Court had held that the report of enquiry officer was based merely on the ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, and so it cannot be sustained, and the inferences drawn by the enquiry officer in that case were not supported by any evidence; and suspicion, however high it may be, cannot be a substitute for legal proof. 22. The learned Single Judge then also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subodh Kumar Prasad-Vs.-State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 282, wherein, the Supreme Court has held that the letter of appointment itself should be examined and not register which indicates dispatch of letters; if the letter of appointment issued to the employee was a fake one, there was a case for disciplinary action, but not by merely looking to the register such conclusion could be inferred. 23. The learned Single Judge also recorded that in W.P.(S)No.7096 of 2017, a coordinate Bench on 02.03.2021 in identical facts, set aside 2025:JHHC:19136-DB -8 of 11- the dismissal order against the employee therein by the same Committee and directed his re-instatement/regularization of services, and the said judgment was confirmed on 20.04.2023 in L.P.A. No. 35 of 2022. 24. The learned Single Judge also noted that the Memo No. 304 dt.30th March, 2000 was not found in the office of the appellants and even the copy of the Memo allegedly issued to Shankar Thakur was not brought on record in the case, and mere non-availability of the said Memo, will not make the appointment of the respondent forged or illegal. 25. The learned Single Judge also held that even according to the appellants, the respondent was working in the department since 1996 as per their counter affidavit dt.11.10.2019, and so it cannot be said that he was not their employee, and he secured appointment suddenly, and in fact he was known to the appellant-Department at the time of issuance of the Memo dt. 30th March, 2000. 26. The learned Single Judge also noted that the order of the appellate authority is also illegal since appellant No. 3, having passed the order against the respondent as disciplinary authority on 13.11.2017, could not have passed the appellate order in his capacity as appellate authority and it would violate the principles of natural justice. 27. Therefore, the learned Single Judge quashed the order dt.13.11.2017 passed by the 3rd appellant and also the order dt.08.05.2019 of the appellate authority and directed the appellants to 2025:JHHC:19136-DB -9 of 11- reinstate the respondent into service within six weeks with all consequential benefits. The LPA 28. Challenging the same, this L.P.A. is filed. 29. Counsel for the appellants-State contended that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and has to be set aside because the Respondent had secured appointment on the basis of a forged appointment letter which was found by the Committee which conducted the preliminary enquiry and which had submitted the preliminary enquiry report on 25.08.2015. 30. He did not dispute that the services of the respondent had been confirmed on 16.10.2007, and being a permanent employee, he is governed by the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 which require the imposition of a major penalty to be preceded by a disciplinary enquiry, which was admittedly not done. 31. Also Rule 17 (4) of the said Rules mandated issuance to the respondent a copy of an articles of charge, statement of imputations of misconduct and list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and admittedly this was also not done by the appellants. 32. The Memo No. 304 dt. 30th March, 2000 which is alleged to be forged by the respondent, is admittedly not available with the respondent and had not been produced in spite of request by the respondent and no copy thereof was furnished to him. 2025:JHHC:19136-DB -10 of 11- 33. Even the preliminary enquiry report was only of one page in which the Executive Engineer, by relying on the dispatch register, concluded that the Memo No. 304 dt.30th March, 2000 was not relating to the respondent but was issued to Shankar Thakur and Anil Kumar Verma regarding quarter allotment, and in that preliminary enquiry also the respondent was not given any opportunity to defend himself. 34. The learned Single Judge in the light of the above findings rightly followed the judgment in Roop Singh Negi-Vs.-Punjab National Bank & Ors. (Supra) and held that there is no proof of the materials on the basis of which the finding is recorded against the respondent, that the whole thing is based on surmises and conjectures, and there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice by denying to the respondent opportunity to properly defend himself in the disciplinary enquiry. 35. We are also in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the order of the appellate authority dt.08.05.2019 is unsustainable for the reason that the disciplinary authority cannot confirm his own order by acting as the appellate authority. 36. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge setting aside the order dt.13.11.2017 of the disciplinary authority as well as the order dt.08.05.2019 of the appellate authority. 37. Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge at least could have remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to have a disciplinary enquiry conducted instead of directing his re-instatement with consequential benefits. 2025:JHHC:19136-DB -11 of 11- 38. In the year 2015 itself the Memo No. 304 dt. 30th March, 2000 was not available with the appellants, and it was not produced even before the learned Single Judge. At this point of time, ten years later, it would be a futile exercise to permit the appellants to conduct a disciplinary enquiry against the respondent afresh and this would amount to further harassment to the respondent. Therefore, the plea in that regard is also rejected. 39. We find therefore no merit in the L.P.A. and it is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) to be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 8 weeks. 40. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) APK