2025:JHHC:28464 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.463 of 2019 ------- Pramod Kumar Sinha, aged about 59 years, son of Satya Prakash Sinha, resident of House No. A3P, New A.G. Cooperative Colony, Kadru, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi. ...… Petitioner Versus (1) The State of Jharkhand through Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi 834 004. (2) Joint Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi 834 004. (3) Deputy Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi 834 004. .….Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Adv. For the Res. State : Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, AC to GA-V ------- 05/ 26.08.2025 The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (a) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /direction(s) for quashing the notification as contained in memo no. 2793 dated 18.09.2018 (Annexure-12) issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been awarded the following punishment in terms of Rule 14(viii) of Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016: (i) The petitioner's suspension order has been revoked with immediate effect and further the petitioner has been reduced in rank from the post of Deputy Commissioner (Taxes) to basic stage of Assistant Commissioner (Taxes); 2025:JHHC:28464 2 (ii) The petitioner's promotion as well as increment has been withheld for two years; (iii) The petitioner would only be entitled for subsistence during allowance his suspension period in terms of Rule 100 of Jharkhand Service Code and further the period of suspension would be regularized for pension purposes; (b) And upon quashing of the aforesaid notification, a further writ / order / direction to release the consequential benefits; 2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Commercial Tax Officer on 26.07.1989. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Jharkhand on 15.09.2014. While he was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Jharkhand at East Circle, Ranchi, an FIR bearing Nigrani P.S. Case No. 37 of 2014 was registered on 05.12.2014 against the Petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 7/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioner has taken a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- and cash of Rs. 6,61,000/-, jewellery etc. were seized from his residence. The Bank Passbook was also seized from the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was taken into judicial custody with effect from 05.12.2014 to 13.04.2015. He was subsequently granted regular bail by this High Court and was released from custody on 30.04.2015. 3. When the Petitioner was in judicial custody, the Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand has issued a Notification as contained in Memo No. 220 dated 20.01.2015; whereby the Petitioner was put under suspension. After release from the judicial custody, the Petitioner gave his joining on 13.04.2015. 2025:JHHC:28464 3 4. By a Resolution as contained in Memo No. 1888 dated 28.05.2015, the Commercial Tax Department, Government of Jharkhand had decided to initiate Departmental Proceeding against the Petitioner in terms of Rule-55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930. A Charge Memo dated 28.05.2015 was issued against him. The Charges were as follows:- Charge No.1 Taking a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- and was arrested on the spot and it was alleged that a First Information Report bearing Nigrani P.S. Case No. 37 of 2014 dated 05.12.2014 was lodged against the petitioner for the offences under sections 7 / 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The act of taking bribe was misconduct as per the Charge Memo. Charge No.2 On arrest, the search was conducted in the house of the petitioner situated at A.G. Cooperative Colony, Police Station- Argora, Ranchi wherein a cash of Rs. 6,61,000/-, jewellery and Bank Passbook of various Banks were seized. The investigation with respect to disproportionate assets was being conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. 5. The List of documents was provided and the details of the documents provided to the Petitioner are as follows:- 1. The letter No. 321 dated 16.01.2015 issued by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand. 2. The report dated 16.01.2015 submitted by Sub- Inspector-cum-Investigating Officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi. 3. The Complaint lodged by Akash Samanta, Director, Samanta Precision Private Limited. 4. The Verification Report of Sub-Inspector, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Ranchi. 5. Government Currency Note Memorandum. 6. The Report dated 05.12.2015 submitted by Sub- Inspector-cum-Investigating Officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi. 7. The Search Report, Acquisition Form and Arrest Memo dated 05.12.2015. 8. The letter No. 08 dated 17.03.2015 issued by the Law Department, Government of Jharkhand. 9. Search-cum-Seizure Report dated 05.12.2015. 2025:JHHC:28464 4 6. The Petitioner by a letter dated 07.07.2015 had requested the Inquiry Officer to stay the Departmental Proceeding till the conclusion of the criminal case. Further, by a letter dated 25.08.2015 he had also replied to the Charges framed against him in the Departmental Proceeding. The Inquiry Officer had submitted the Enquiry Report on 30.10.2015 wherein the Charge No.1 was found to be proved and with respect to Charge No.2 it was stated that no conclusive findings could be arrived at. The Petitioner was served with a Second Show Cause Notice along with copy of the Enquiry Report and he has replied to the Second Show Cause Notice. 7. By a Notification as contained in Memo No. 2793 dated 18.09.2018 he was inflicted with the following punishment: - (a) The petitioner's suspension order has been revoked with immediate effect and further the petitioner has been reduced in rank from the post of Deputy Commissioner (Taxes) to basic stage of Assistant Commissioner (Taxes); (b) The petitioner's promotion as well as increment has been withheld for two years; (c) The petitioner would only be entitled for subsistence during allowance his suspension period in terms of Rule 100 of Jharkhand Service Code and further the period of suspension would be regularized for pension purposes; 8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that no oral evidence was led during the course of Departmental Proceeding. He has relied upon the charge memo and has submitted that on perusal of the same it is evident that only the documents were provided during the course of Departmental Proceeding and no witness was produced to prove the documents. Ld. Counsel further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case 2025:JHHC:28464 5 of Roop Singh Negi Vrs. Punjab National Bank1 (refer paragraphs-14, 15 and 19), State of Uttar Pradesh Vrs. Saroj Kumar Sinha2 (refer paragraphs 28 and 33) and Satyendra Singh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another3 (refer paragraphs-13, 14, 15, 16 and 17). 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has relied upon the pleadings made in the Counter Affidavit and has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the Enquiry Report, response of the Petitioner to the Second Show Cause Notice and other relevant documents and after considering all the material available has found the response of the Petitioner to be unsatisfactory and it was decided to inflict punishment upon him. It was further argued that the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner was subject to the final outcome of the criminal case and has further submitted that the principle of natural justice has been followed. 10. After going through the “Prapatra-Ka” and the Enquiry Report it is evident that no witnesses were produced during the course of the Departmental Proceeding in order to corroborate the allegation alleged in the chargesheet and the said fact could not be disputed by the Counsel for the Respondent-State. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) has held at paragraphs-14 and 15 the following:- “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 1 (2009) 2 SCC 570 2 (2010) 2 SCC 772 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 2025:JHHC:28464 6 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.” Emphasis Supplied Same view was reiterated in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph-28: “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.” Emphasis Supplied Recently also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after following the aforesaid two judgments has held in the Satyendra Singh (supra) at paragraph-17: “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. Jhalat, 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 12. In view of the admitted facts that no witness has been examined to prove the documents and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the punishment order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the Respondent No.2-Commercial Tax Department, Government 2025:JHHC:28464 7 of Jharkhand, is hereby, quashed and set-aside on the ground of non-compliance of the settled principles of Natural Justice. 13. Having regard to the fact that at present the petitioner is aged about 66 years old and has already retired from services on 31.08.2019, no fruitful purpose would be served in remanding the matter to the authorities concerned. 14. Consequently, the consequential benefits should be released to the Petitioner within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Respondent-State would be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law after disposal of the criminal case. 15. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the instant application stands allowed. Pending I.As., if any, is also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/- AFR/NAFR