2025:JHHC:27841 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4350 of 2020 Nand Kishore Singh, aged about 44 years, son of Late Thakur Deep Singh, resident of Karra Road, P.O. & P.S.-Karra, District-Ranchi; ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 2. Secretary, Revenue Department of the Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.GPO, Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi; 4. Circle Officer, Ormanjhi, P.O.+ P.S.-Ormanjhi, Dist- Ranchi ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, SC-V -------- Order No. 21 /Dated: 11th September 2025 The instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1. That, by means of this writ application, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s) for quashing the Impugned order passed by respondent No:3 issued under Memo No:29 (i) dated 02.11.2020 (Annexure-14) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from his service. "As also for quashing the impugned Appellate Order passed by the Divisional Commissioner in term of Office Order dated 02.03.2021 passed in Service Appeal No:01 of 2020 which has been communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No:571 dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure-17); AND/OR for issuance of any other writ /order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ application are that in the year, 1999 the petitioner was appointed as 2025:JHHC:27841 2 Revenue Clerk and accordingly, he joined his service on 27.10.1999 in Murhu Anchal in the district of Ranchi. The petitioner was given the charge of Halka No.4 on 27.10.2015 and thereafter said charge was taken back from him on 20.05.2016 and handed over to one Anita Hembram who alleged that when the petitioner was in charge some pages of Register-II were torn away from it. Thereafter, a show-cause was issued to the petitioner regarding missing of page no. 240 from Register-II, Vol.-4 of Halka No.4. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause explaining that he handed over all the volumes of Register-II of Halka No.4 to Anita Hembram. On 16.04.2018, Anita Hembram submitted report before the Circle Office, Ormanjhi stating that she has given charge to the petitioner on 27.10.2015 and raised doubt that at the relevant time, the petitioner might have torn out the relevant pages and edited in Register-II. On 12.11.2018, the petitioner submitted his reply to all the three charges against him before the District Establishment Deputy Collector. Thereafter a charge-sheet against the petitioner was issued vide memo no. 129(ii) dated 28.01.2020 and he was asked to appear before Inquiry Officer on 14.03.2020. On 10.10.2020, petitioner was given second show-cause notice and he replied to the same on 16.10.2020. On 02.11.2020, impugned order of dismissal from service was issued to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ application. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is an extreme example of procedural lapses, inasmuch as, on the 2025:JHHC:27841 3 one hand; the authority has relied upon a preliminary enquiry report and on the other hand, no oral evidence has been led on behalf of the Department in order to corroborate the allegation made in the charge-sheet. Accordingly, on this score alone the matter requires interference. Learned counsel further argued on merits of the case that it is a case of no evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that from document it does not transpire that the documents have been proved by the oral evidence and since there was a preliminary enquiry in the case of the petitioner, the Inquiry officer has relied upon the preliminary enquiry and held that the charge has been proved. He submits that the charge is very grave in nature. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record; admittedly, the Inquiry officer has relied upon the preliminary enquiry report and also other documents which have not been corroborated by oral evidence. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid admitted position that on the one hand, the Inquiry officer has relied its opinion on the preliminary enquiry report and on the other hand, all other documents which have been relied upon by the Inquiry officer in order to prove the charge has not been corroborated by any oral evidence. 7. In “Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank”1 and in 1 (2009) 2 SCC 570 2025:JHHC:27841 4 “State of U.P v. Saroj Kumar Sinha” 2 the law has been laid down categorically that the Inquiry officer has to act as an empire and even in an ex parte enquiry, the document has to be proved by oral evidence. Further, in “Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.”3 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory. Reference in this regard may be held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank9 and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat.10 .......................................................................................................................... 15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha,12 wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence presented by the Department to find out whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha13 are as follows:— “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. ….................................................................................................................... 33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent has been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he has been condemned unheard as the inquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a single witness has been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. The High Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the entire proceedings are vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the charge-sheet.” 2 (2010) 2 SCC 772 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 2025:JHHC:27841 5 (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 Negi15 and Nirmala J. Jhala16, 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.” Emphasis Supplied 8. Accordingly, the instant writ application is allowed and the order issued under Memo No. 29(i) dated 02.11.2020 and also the appellate order passed by the Divisional Commissioner in term of office order dated 02.03.2021 in Service Appeal No. 01 of 2020, are hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to conclude the disciplinary proceeding from the stage of enquiry where they have committed procedural irregularity. 9. Since the petitioner is out of service, the respondents are directed to conclude the entire enquiry proceeding within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and if the respondents would not be able to conclude the disciplinary proceeding within the aforesaid stipulated period, the petitioner shall be deemed to be reinstated from the date the stipulated time will lapse. 10. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall not take any time and he will fully cooperate in the entire departmental proceeding. So far as payment of back wages are concerned, since the matter is remitted with a direction to the concerned respondent to continue the disciplinary proceeding from the stage of enquiry, it would not be appropriate to give 2025:JHHC:27841 6 any direction with regard to payment of back wages by this Court but the petitioner is directed to file an application with regard to back wages before the concerned respondent who shall take a decision in the backdrop of the affidavit filed by the petitioner wherein he has stated that he has not worked for the period he was out of service. 11. As a result, the instant writ application stands disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit