2025:JHHC:13616 -: 1 :- W.P.(S) No. 2922 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2922 of 2020 Shilpi Hembrom wife of Shri Rohit Kumar Murmu, resident of House No.179, Road No.3, Birsa Nagar, PO Hinoo, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus 1. Central University of Jharkhand, through its Registrar, PO Brambe, PS Mandar, District Ranchi. 2. Executive Council, Central University of Jharkhand through its Chairman-cum-Vice Chancellor, PO Brambe, PS Mandar, District Ranchi. 3. Shri Nand Kumar Yadav ‘Indu’, Vice Chancellor, Central University of Jharkhand, PO Brambe, PS Mandar, District Ranchi. 4. Shri S.L. Harikumar, presently working as Registrar, Central University of Jharkhand, PO Brambe, PS Mandar, District Ranchi. … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate ---- O R D E R 09/02.04.2025 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent at length. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the CUJ Order No. CUJ/PM/03/2011/Part/136 dated 19.03.2020, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been removed from the services of the University. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum of Charges No. CUJ/PM/03/2011-Part/483 dated 22/23.07.2019. Petitioner has further prayed that upon quashing the aforesaid order and the departmental proceeding, petitioner be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she, a married tribal woman, was working as Assistant Professor in the Centre for Human Rights & Conflict Management, now known as Department of Contemporary & Tribal Customary Law. The petitioner submitted a written complaint to the Officer-In-Charge, SC/ST Police Station, Ranchi and an FIR was instituted against the Respondent No.3 and others being SC/ST P.S. Case No.11 of 2017 dated 2025:JHHC:13616 -: 2 :- W.P.(S) No. 2922 of 2020 08.05.2017, corresponding to SC/ST Case No.191 of 2017. The Chairperson of JSWC, Kalyani Sharan, paid a private visit to the petitioner at the university and stated that the petitioner would have to close the matter on her own level. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice by the then Registrar on 22.09.2017 for her alleged behavior against Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) & (xi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. She was directed to submit her written explanation by 25.09.2017. The petitioner had replied to the said show cause on 25.09.2017. Petitioner had requested the Respondents to provide her a copy of the said Newspaper which said that the petitioner had misbehaved with the Chairperson. Thereafter, the petitioner was again served with a show cause by the then Registrar (I/c) Ratan Kumar Dey. The petitioner replied to both the show cause notices. The petitioner was provided a cropped copy of the newspaper which was not authentic and further in the newspaper cutting nowhere it has been mentioned that the petitioner has used un-parliamentary language to the Chairperson, JSWC. Thereafter again a Show Cause Notice was served upon the petitioner in which it was stated that the JSWC has recommended for taking action against the petitioner and three days' time was given to the petitioner for submitting her reply to the show cause. To this the petitioner replied asking to provide her a copy of the report of the Commission and also to provide her an authentic copy of the newspaper. In spite of multiple requests made by the petitioner to provide her a copy of the report of the Commission and the newspaper copy, the Respondent University failed to provide the same. The petitioner had instituted additional online First Information Report on 17.03.2019 arising out of SC/ST P.S. Case No.11 of 2017 enclosing the said Commission report dated 26.12.2017, which she had received through her colleague, and the typed copy of conversation between the petitioner and Mrs. Kalyani Sharan, Chairperson, JSWC dated 19.09.2017, mentioning all the facts under section 15(A) (9) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the two F.I.R.s lodged by the petitioner were not investigated in a proper manner and without even recording the statement of the petitioner under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Investigating Officer of the said case filed a Final Form which was again not informed to the petitioner. Thereafter an Order bearing No. CUJ/PM/ 03/ 2011/ Part/ 317 dated 01.05.2019 was issued by Respondent No.4 stating that a Disciplinary Proceeding is contemplated against the petitioner on the report and recommendation of JSWC, placing the petitioner under suspension by exercising powers conferred to him under Statute 25(1) of Central Universities 2025:JHHC:13616 -: 3 :- W.P.(S) No. 2922 of 2020 Act 2009 and Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The suspension of the petitioner was further extended by 180 days as the Disciplinary Proceeding could not be concluded. The petitioner in reference to the Memorandum of Charges informed that under the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, 15 days time is desirable for submitting the reply, and hence requested to amend the MoC. The petitioner’s representation to be heard in person before the Executive Council was ignored and an order of the inquiry being concluded against the petitioner under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules was issued by the Respondent No. 4. Before even completion of 15 days, the Inquiring Authority sent an email enclosing the Order-Sheet dated 16.09.2019 wherein he alleged that the petitioner did not submit her written statement of defence with respect to Show Cause Notice issued to her. The petitioner filed W.P.(S) No. 5090/2019 before this Court on 21.09.2019 challenging the Orders of suspension dated 01.05.2019 and 26.07.2019 and the initiation of Departmental Proceeding as well as the appointment of Inquiring Authority vide Order dated 23.08.2019. In the said writ petition, this Court had ordered for issuing notice to the Respondents to file the Counter Affidavit in 4 weeks on 11.12.2019 but no Counter Affidavit was filed by the Respondents. The petitioner, in the meantime, on 28.09.2019, in reply to memorandum dated 29.08.2019, requested the respondents to provide her a copy of Annexure 1 and Annexure IV in order to prepare the written statement of defence. The respondent-Inquiring Authority, on 03.10.2019 passed an order that there is no separate Annexure I, rather Annexure I sent to the petitioner along with the Memorandum of Charges is Two in One, i.e., the statement of imputation of misconduct and Article of Charges and the same has already been provided to the petitioner. The Inquiring Authority also stated that Annexure III is list of witnesses by whom the Article of Charges framed are proposed to be sustained and provided seven pages Annexure IV stating that it contains documents on the basis of which the Articles of Charges were proposed to be proved. Petitioner had also made a request to be heard in person by the Executive Council/Disciplinary Authority, which was rejected by the Registrar vide order dated 16.10.2019 stating that Inquiring Authority was appointed on 03.06.2019. Petitioner again on 17.10.2019 requested the Inquiring Authority to provide minimum 15 days’ time to prepare her request and had also requested to provide her Annexure 1 as also requested to provide copies of Daily Order Sheet Nos.1 and 2 along with its annexures. The Inquiring Authority on 18.10.2019 rejected the request of the petitioner and directed her to file her written statement by next date, i.e., 2025:JHHC:13616 -: 4 :- W.P.(S) No. 2922 of 2020 05.11.2019, lest he will proceed ex-parte. Petitioner through an email dated 04.11.2019 responded to the Inquiring Authority and had reiterated that the Inquiring Authority is bound to provide copy of every order to her. On 05.11.2019, the Inquiring Authority observed that since the petitioner has raised objections on the credibility of the Inquiring Authority, she may take up the matter with Disciplinary Authority/Executive Council to get Inquiring Authority changed and fixed next date of hearing on 25.11.2019. It was also mentioned in the order that the Inquiring Authority had to conclude the inquiry in 3 months, which expires on 29.11.2019. Petitioner represented before the Executive Council vide email letter dated 24.11.2019, requesting to remove the Inquiring Authority. On 25.11.2019, the Inquiring Authority fixed the next date of hearing on 10.12.2019, awaiting communication regarding extension of tenure from the Vice Chancellor. The Registrar (I/c) vide letter dated 10.12.2019 informed the petitioner that the Executive Council in its meeting dated 06.12.2019 has rejected the request of the petitioner and it was also informed that Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha will continue as Inquiring Authority. On 10.12.2019, the Inquiring Authority passed an order giving last chance to the petitioner to file the written statement of defence, lest he will proceed ex-parte. Next hearing was fixed for 30.12.2019. Petitioner again vide email letter dated 27.12.2019 requested the Inquiring Authority to provide her copy of statement of witnesses, which was recorded during the preliminary inquiry. Petitioner had also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. versus Shatrughan Lal & Another reported in 1998 (6) SCC 651. The Inquiring Authority on 30.12.2019 ordered to proceed ex-parte from 09.01.2020. On 09.01.2020, the Inquiring Authority passed an order wherein while mentioning that no preliminary inquiry was held in this case and charges were based on reports submitted by the State Women Commission, who had enquired the matter and the final form submitted by the Police in SC/ST PS Case No.11/2007 dated 08.05.2017, rejected the request of the petitioner stating that the case relied upon by the Delinquent Officer is not fit for this case as there is no statement of proposed witness and such claim has not been made in written statement of defence. The Inquiring Authority further fixed the date for ex-parte inquiry on 27.01.2020, which was later fixed for 29.01.2020. Further, the petitioner filed protest petition against the closure of the SC/ST case, which was allowed by the learned Special Judge and accordingly SC/ST Case No.5/2020 dated 18.01.2020 was registered, which is pending before the learned Special Judge SC/ST. The petitioner, again vide letter dated 2025:JHHC:13616 -: 5 :- W.P.(S) No. 2922 of 2020 26.01.2020, requested the Executive Council to remove the Inquiring Authority mentioning about his incompetence to hold the inquiry. On 29.01.2020, the Inquiring Authority ordered that ex-parte inquiry shall be held on 31.01.2020, wherein he mentioned that once the charge has been framed and the Inquiring Authority has been appointed, the Disciplinary Authority has no reason to interfere in inquiry before Inquiring Authority submits its report. He also mentioned that order of Inquiring Authority is not appealable and there is no provision of appeal against interlocutory orders of Inquiring Authority before the Executive Council/Disciplinary Authority. By order dated 31.01.2020, Inquiring Authority conducted ex-parte inquiry, wherein he admitted all the photocopies of documents certified by Registrar, as documentary evidence. He further observed that since Presenting Officer has filed petition that he does not want to adduce any oral evidence and any other documentary evidence on behalf of the University, as such the evidence on behalf of the University is closed. He fixed 04.02.2020 for argument. On 04.02.2020, the Inquiring Authority concluded the inquiry and ordered for sending a copy of the order to the Delinquent Officer through email. On 12.02.2020, the Registrar, respondent No.4, sent an order through email informing the petitioner that Inquiring Authority has submitted his report on 06.02.2020, wherein petitioner was asked, if she desires so, to submit her written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within 15 days, lest it will be presumed that she has nothing to say in the matter and the decision will be taken accordingly. On 20.02.2020, the petitioner by enclosing a web copy of the order dated 14.02.2020 passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Iswar Chand Bidyasagar versus Central University of Jharkhand & Others [W.P.(S) No.5091 of 2019], submitted that CCS (CCA) Rule 1965 has no application in respondent university, as such the entire enquiry conducted by the Inquiring Authority as well as the order issued by the Registrar dated 12.02.2020 under CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 are illegal and are liable to be withdrawn. Thereafter the Registrar, respondent No.4, issued an order dated 19.03.2020, whereby the petitioner was removed from the services of the University in accordance with Statute 25 of CU Act, 2009 and Rule 11(viii) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 w.e.f. the date of suspension, i.e., 1st May, 2019. Challenging the order dated 19.03.2020 and praying for quashing the entire Departmental Proceeding, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent No. 4, who initiated the Disciplinary Proceeding against the petitioner by serving 2025:JHHC:13616 -: 6 :- W.P.(S) No. 2922 of 2020 the Memorandum of Charges, was not even the member of Executive Council. Further, the request made by the petitioner for providing her with the requisitioned documents was not acceded to by the respondents. Learned counsel also submitted that petitioner’s request for providing her with more time was also not accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the case of Dr. Iswar Chand Bidyasagar versus Central University of Jharkhand & Others [W.P.(S) No. 5091 of 2019], wherein it has been held that as per settled law, CCS (CCA) Rule 1965 has no application in respondent university as such entire Departmental Proceeding and removal of the petitioner in accordance with Statute 25 of the Central Universities Act, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and are, thus, liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the respondents did not examine any witnesses in course of the departmental proceeding to substantiate the charges against the petitioner and the contents of the documentary evidence have not been proved by the oral evidence. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent - University, that, the suspension of the petitioner and the initiation of departmental proceedings did not require adherence to the principles of natural justice at the preliminary stage. Learned counsel has also mentioned, in regard to applicability of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, that the university has framed an Ordinance namely "Ordinance on the matters which are not covered by Ordinance Regulations and Rules of the University". The said ordinance states that the particular subject for an individual case which is not covered by the Ordinance, Rules and Regulations of the University shall be dealt with in accordance with rules and norms of the Government of India as applicable from time to time. The learned counsel alleges that the petitioner by taking advantage of her being a Scheduled Tribe had instituted the FIR against the then Vice Chancellor and others on the pretext of Sexual Harassment and Humiliation, which has been found to be false. Furthermore, to give a fair chance to the petitioner in compliance of the principles of natural justice and in order to conduct a fair proceeding without any bias, the Executive Council had appointed a retired District and Additional Sessions Judge as Inquiry Authority, but despite several opportunities afforded and adjournments, the petitioner was adamant not to attend the Disciplinary Proceeding. Accordingly, the departmental proceeding was held ex-parte. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the records. Before arriving at findings based on the assessment of 2025:JHHC:13616 -: 7 :- W.P.(S) No. 2922 of 2020 records and arguments of the parties, some judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the observations made therein are being appended hereinafter. 7. A departmental Inquiry Officer is an independent adjudicator. He is a quasi-judicial authority. The said Officer is not supposed to be a representative of the department or the Disciplinary Authority. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department. Even in the absence of the delinquent employee, the inquiry officer has to perform, his duty to find out independently as to whether charges are proved or not. If the case of the department is based on some documents, those documents also needs to be proved. Some witnesses must be produced by the department and must be examined to prove the documents relied by the department. A document which is not proved by oral evidence must not be taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion that the charge is proved. The contents of the document must be proved by some person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 14 in the case of "Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others" reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 has held as under: "14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled 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. Further in the case of "State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha" reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the documents which were produced before the Enquiry Officer needs to be proved. At paragraph 28 of the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “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 2025:JHHC:13616 -: 8 :- W.P.(S) No. 2922 of 2020 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.” 9. Even in a very recent judgment in the case of "Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another" reported in 2024 INSC 873 (neutral citation), at paragraph 17 thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while reiterating the law laid down in the case of "Roop Singh Negi" (supra) and "Nirmala J. Jhala versus State of Gujarat & Another [(2013) 4 SCC 301], has observed as under: - “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." 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh versus Ram Prakash Singh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891, formulated, on amongst others, two issues, which are:- (i) Whether, in pursuance of a purported enquiry where there was none to present the case of the department, no witness was examined in support of the charges and no document was formally proved, any order of punishment could validly be made? (ii) Whether the disciplinary authority was justified in placing reliance on a report of enquiry prepared by the Enquiry Officer who had looked into documents which were not provided to the respondent and had arrived at findings of guilt only on the basis of the charge-sheet, the reply thereto of the respondent and such documents? 11. While answering the said issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took into consideration Roop Singh Negi case (supra) and also the case of Saroj 2025:JHHC:13616 -: 9 :- W.P.(S) No. 2922 of 2020 Kumar & Others (supra) and thereafter has held that without exhibiting the documents those documents cannot be relied upon while punishing the delinquent. 12. Considering the aforesaid proposition of law, I have gone through the enquiry report. From the enquiry report it is clear that none of the documents have been exhibited. Further, no oral evidence was also adduced. This position is not denied by the lawyer of the respondents. Paragraph 7 of the enquiry report deals with the evidence of the University. At the very first line of paragraph 7, the Enquiry Officer records a finding that the Presenting Officer submitted that he is not to adduce any oral evidence. However, he has filed Xerox copies of several documents duly certified by the Registrar of the University. Based on these documents, without there being any oral evidence, guilt of the petitioner has been proved by the Enquiry Officer. This is absolutely a wrong procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer. This procedure adopted is against the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been referred to above. Whatever be the charge, however graver it is, in absence of oral evidence and legally admissible documentary evidence, the same cannot be said to be proved. In this case, documents, which were produced, admittedly have not been proved by any oral evidence as admittedly no one was produced by the University as witness. 13. Thus, in view of the judgments referred to above on this point, I find that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above. On this score alone the punishment order and the consequential orders thereto are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order No. CUJ/PM/03/2011/Part/136 dated 19.03.2020 and all consequential orders thereto are set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits to be paid within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02