2025:JHHC:31759 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 867 of 2022 ------ Jai Bhuia, Personal No. 01435825 Son of Late Birju Bhuia, resident of C. MW O Colony, Nirsa-cum-Chirkunda, P.O and P.S. Chirkunda, District- Dhanbad. … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BCCL, office at Koyala Bhawan, P.O Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad. 2. The Director (Personnel), BCCL, office at Koyala Bhawan, P.O Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad. 3. The General Manager, BCCL, Bastacola Area No. 9, P.O and P.S. Dhansar, District- Dhanbad. 4. The Agent/Project Officer, BCCL, Dobari, Colliery, P.O and P.S. Dhansar, District- Dhanbad. ... Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate. For the BCCL M/s Indrajit Sinha and Pradyot Chatterjee, Advocates. ------ 13/14.10.2025: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.3.2021 (Annexure-5), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service on account of absenteeism. Further a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 25.2.2022 whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. From the arguments of the parties, I find that admittedly, the petitioner is a workman under M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL). A charge-sheet was issued to him alleging therein that he has remained unauthorizedly absent from 2.3.2020. The petitioner was asked to show cause. He submitted a reply on 23.9.2020. As his reply was not satisfactory, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer issued notice to the petitioner to appear in the Departmental Proceeding. However, the petitioner did not participate in the Departmental Proceeding. 4. Some documents were produced by the Presenting Officer before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner did not produce any document in support of his defence. Thereafter, fresh notice was issued fixing the date of enquiry on 25.9.2020 when the petitioner appeared and participated. The Enquiry Officer finally submitted a report finding the allegation of charge against the petitioner of unauthorized absence to be proved. Lastly, the Disciplinary Authority issued the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service after issuing the second 2. show cause notice. The petitioner's mercy appeal also stood dismissed. 5. When I go through the Enquiry Report, I find that the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner is absolutely cryptic. From the Enquiry Report, it is clear that though some documents produced by the Presenting Officer, yet the same were not proved in accordance with law. Further, no witnesses were examined by the Department. Thus, the Enquiry Report is absolutely cryptic. 6. Annexure-3 is the Enquiry Report. The documents which were placed before the Enquiry Officer are (1) Departmental Chargesheet (2) Reply of the petitioner (3) Letter appointing the Enquiry Officer and (4) Letter, which was sent to the petitioner to participate in the Departmental Proceeding. 7. In the entire Departmental Proceeding, neither the attendance register nor any documents to show that the petitioner was not attending were produced nor any oral evidence was produced on behalf of the management to suggest that the petitioner was absent from duty. Thus, it is clear that without any material, the enquiry report has been submitted. 8. 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. 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.” 9. 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 Negi11, 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- 3. 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. 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.” 4. 10. In this case, I find that without taking any documentary or oral evidences, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report proving the charge of unauthorized absence to be true. 11. Considering what has been held above, I find merit in this writ petition. Consequently the order of dismissal as well as enquiry report is quashed and set aside. 12. The respondents are directed to initiate a fresh enquiry against the petitioner in which the petitioner will participate to defend his case. It is expected that fresh enquiry, initiated against the petitioner should be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Setting aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner as well and enquiry proceeding does not mean that the petitioner will be reinstated in service. The reinstatement will depend on the final order passed in the fresh Departmental Proceeding. 14. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. 14th October, 2025 Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)