2025:JHHC:19139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.869 of 2025 ---- Rajesh Kumar Mishra, aged about 51 years, son of Late Vijay Shankar Mishra, resident of Sukhdevnagar, Ratu Road, Ranchi P.O., Hehal, P.S., Sukhdevnagar, District-Ranchi – 834005, presently posted and working as Assistant Settlement Officer, Settlement Office, Ranchi …. …. Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 3. The Joint Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 4. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi …. …. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Murari, Adv. For the Respondent s : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, GA-IV ---- 05/Dated: 11th July, 2025 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- a. For quashing the Order of Punishment vide Resolution bearing Memo No.23946 dated 08.09.2023 (Annexure-9), issued under the signature of Joint Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand, (Respondent No.3) whereby and whereunder in spite of exoneration in the departmental proceeding by the Departmental Enquiry Officer vide Enquiry Report dated 18.08.2022, forwarded vide Letter No.213 dated 23.08.2022, in so called difference whereof the petitioner is punished in gross violation of Rule 17 read with Rule 18 (2) to 18(5) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016. 2025:JHHC:19139 Page | 2 W.P. (S) No.869 of 2025 b. To declare and hold that since no evidence was led nor any witness was examined in support of the charge and above all since these charges by itself was non-est, the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 18.08.2022 exonerating the petitioner is perfectly justified and therefore, the issuance of second show- cause notice in difference thereof that too without citing evidence having potential to overturn the decision of the Enquiry Officer is non-est besides being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and therefore the consequential order of punishment is equally illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional besides being non-est in the eyes of law. c. Further to declare and hold that since the statutorily prescribed procedure has not been followed, the order of punishment is otherwise wholly without jurisdiction besides being violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and thus, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. d. Consequently, for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for ensuing promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Magistrate and equivalent in the Pay Level-11 from the existing Pay Level 09 and not to defer the same in the garb of impugned non-est punishment. e. During pendency of this writ petition, the operation of the impugned order of Punishment imposed vide Resolution bearing Memo No.23946 dated 08.09.2023 (Annexure-9), may kindly be stayed.” 3. It appears that the petitioner has been appointed in the cadre of Jharkhand Administrative Service (Class-II) through the Jharkhand Public Service Commission in the year 2013. The present dispute is with regard to the post of Circle Officer, Ratu Block, Ranchi. 4. It further appears that during public meeting of the Chief Minister, certain complaint has been made and on that basis internal inquiry has been made and after scrutinizing the same, departmental proceeding has been initiated vide memorandum of charge dated 20.05.2020 against this petitioner. In the memo, two allegations have been levelled against him, which are as under:- (i) Regarding continuous absence from the Office. (ii) Regarding pendency of the mutation cases. 5. It appears that the departmental proceeding has proceeded and enquiry report dated 18.08.2022 has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer 2025:JHHC:19139 Page | 3 W.P. (S) No.869 of 2025 (Annexure-5 series of the present writ petition) wherein the petitioner has been exonerated from all the charges. 6. It also appears that the department after scrutinizing the same, has not accepted the enquiry report and accordingly, 2nd show cause dated 13.04.2023 has been issued. Paragraph No.5 and the last portion of the said show-cause are quoted herein below:- “5. समीƗोपरांत, िवभागीय जाँच पदािधकारी Ȫारा समिपŊत जाँच Ůितवेदन से असहमत होते Šए आपके िवŝȠ झारखǷ सरकारी सेवक (वगŎकरण, िनयंũण एवं अपील) िनयमावली, 2016 के िनयम-14 (iv) के तहत असंचयाȏक Ůभाव से एक वेतन वृİȠ पर रोक का दǷ Ůˑािवत िकया गया है। अतः िवभागीय जाँच पदािधकारी से Ůाɑ जाँच Ůितवेदन एवं संबंिधत अिभलेख संलư करते Šए अनुरोध है िक उƅ Ůˑािवत दǷ आप पर Ɛा नहीं अिधरोिपत िकया जाय?- इस संबंध मŐ अपना िȪतीय कारण पृDžा एक पƗ के अȽर समिपŊत करने की कृ पा की जाय।“ 7. It appears that the petitioner has submitted his further reply dated 06.06.2023 and thereafter, the department has passed the order of punishment dated 08.09.2023 withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect. The said order of punishment has been impugned in the present writ petition. 8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner has been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, then the only procedure available with the department is the issuance of 2nd show-cause assigning the reason of disagreement and to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the discrepancy. In the present case, in the 2nd show-cause notice, the department has found the petitioner guilty by deferring with the enquiry report and the order of punishment has been proposed. Regarding the quantum of punishment, only the show-cause has been issued which is nothing but negation of the principle of natural justice. It is well settled principle that any order passed without providing any adequate opportunity is negation of rule of law and nullity in the eye of law. 9. Learned counsel for the State has supported the order of punishment and it has been submitted that the entire procedure has been followed. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner has been exonerated from both the charges by the Enquiry Officer. The department has deferred with the enquiry report 2025:JHHC:19139 Page | 4 W.P. (S) No.869 of 2025 and has recorded the finding of guilt in the 2nd show-cause. Only regarding the punishment show-cause has been issued. This is an unknown procedure. 11. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 08.09.2023 (Annexure-9) issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand (respondent No.3) is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is hereby, quashed and set-aside. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. 13. As prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I.A No.4479 of 2025 seeking interim direction for considering the name of the petitioner for promotion also stands dismissed as withdrawn. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Raja/- Uploaded