2025:JHHC:36804 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S) No. 7045 of 2025 ----- Md. Yusuf, aged about 59 years, son of Md. Munif, resident of Sahjoli, P.O. & P.S.-Alinagar (Bahera), District-Darbhanga, Bihar … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Chief Secretary of Jharkhand Govt. having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Secretary Personnel, Administration Report and Rajbhasha of Jharkhand Government having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Director, Rajbhasha, Santhal Pargana Division at Dumka, P.O. & P.S.-Dumka, District-Dumka. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar. 6. Sub Divisional Officer, Madhupur, P.O. & P.S.-Madhupur, District-Deoghar. 7. Akhilesh Kumar the then Block Development Officer, Karon, P.O. & P.S.-Karon, District-Deoghar. … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate …...... 02/08.12.2025: 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the departmental proceeding initiated against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not issued the alleged caste certificate, rather it has been issued by some other person for which the petitioner has been proceeded against. 4. The petitioner is a clerk and it is alleged that a false caste certificate was issued. Prima facie as there was involvement of this petitioner, thus, he was charge-sheeted. It is the claim of the petitioner that he was not involved in the entire case, thus, he has been wrongly proceeded against. He further submits that he was not even posted at that time at the relevant place. Thus, the departmental proceeding against him cannot continue. 5. The stand of the petitioner before this Court is nothing but his defence. The same defence can be looked into by the enquiry 2025:JHHC:36804 2 officer. These defences which the petitioner is trying to put forth must be substantiated by him by leading evidence before the enquiry officer, which cannot be looked into by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, the same is dismissed. 7. The petitioner may appear and place all the evidences in support of his innocence before the enquiry officer who will consider the same and come to an appropriate conclusion. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Rashmi/-