2025:JHHC:27717 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 4637 of 2016 --------- Rajendra Prasad Singh, son of Late Devendra Prasad Singh, resident of Flat No.201, Rameshwar Apartment, Radium Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi. 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi. 3. The Additional Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi. 5. The Joint Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V --------- 06/Dated:-11.09.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /order(s) / direction(s) for quashing of letter No.4305, dated 04.11.2015 Issued by Deputy Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 49(iii) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1930 by a reduction to a lower post and time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale. The petitioner has been found guilty under Rule 49(iii) and has been imposed penalty and the pay scale of the petitioner is reduced to Rs.15,600-39,100/= grade pay 6600 at the lower pay scale, has been fixed; After quashing of the letter no. 4305 dated 04.11.2015, further a writ / order / direction be issued in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the letter no. KAUN/BHI 706/2002-2988 dated 20.07.2016, whereby and whereunder the Appellate Authority has rejected appeal filed by the petitioner without any speaking order or 2025:JHHC:27717 2 reasoned order; 3. The brief facts of the case are as per the pleadings is that the petitioner was appointed as Commercial Taxes Officer, Government of Jharkhand through Bihar Public Service Commission on 06.02.1982 and was posted as Commercial Tax Officer in the erstwhile State of Bihar till 2003. When, he was posted as Assistant Treasure Officer, Secretariat Treasury at Patna from June 1993 to September 1996 and during the period 1993-94, the petitioner was named in the First Information Report wherein it was alleged that only Rs.40,000/- and odd was allotted to the petitioner but the bill worth of Rs.79,000/- and odd was passed. The Patna High Court after considering the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was ready to deposit Rs.40,000/- before the I.G. Vigilance without prejudice to his right and contention as to the merit of the case, was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.5046/1997 dated 03.04.1997 (Annexure-1) and after passing of the order by the Patna High Court, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- by Draft No.439780 dated 24.04.1997 (Annexure-3) before the I.G. Vigilance. 4. Thereafter, vide Resolution No.5294, dated 16.12.2009 the petitioner was served Prapatra (Ka) and vide Resolution No.5295 dated 17.12.2009 (Annexure-3), a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the Commercial Taxes Department Jharkhand, Ranchi. As per the allegation in the 2025:JHHC:27717 3 Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28/1996, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet on 08.06.2007 against the petitioner, wherein four bills of (i) Rs.19,930/- (ii) Rs.19,990/- (iii) Rs.19,990/- and (iv) Rs.19,080/- which were alleged that the said bills were passed by the petitioner. The petitioner after getting first show cause had replied on 15.01.2010 vide Annexure-5 to the Inquiry Officer stating therein that in the case which is pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance Patna, charge sheet has been submitted and the Learned Court is looking into the matter as the case is pending for trial so for identical allegations Departmental proceeding cannot be initiated against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner had also applied before the Registrar, Civil Court, Patna for the certified copy of said four alleged bills on 04.12.2013 (Annexure-6) but the requisition was returned by the Copying Department, Civil Court, Patna on 21.12.2013 stating therein that there is no such bill on record. Accordingly, the certified copy of the said four bills cannot be provided to the petitioner. Without receiving any bill and without appreciating the fact that no said bill is available on record, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the said four bills were signed by the petitioner. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was served to the petitioner vide letter No.706/02 dated 29.05.2015 (Annexure- 8). After receiving the second show cause the petitioner gave his reply on 09.06.2015 (Annexure-9) stating therein that the alleged 2025:JHHC:27717 4 four bills as per the First Information Report have not been served to the petitioner though the fact is that the petitioner had applied for the said alleged four bills before the Registrar, Civil Court, Patna but the requisition was returned to the petitioner stating therein that no such alleged four bills are on record. 6. It is pertinent to mention herein that the said four alleged bills were also demanded by the Inquiry Officer from Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Patna, but the same has also not been served to the Inquiry Officer. However, without considering the case of the petitioner and without going into the merits of the case, the order dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure-10) has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced to 15,600-39,100 to grade pay of Rs.6600/- at the lowest scale. Since, the petitioner was drawing the basic pay of Rs.36,200/- per month before the impugned order was passed, now the petitioner started getting a basic pay of Rs.15,600/- per month. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from other grounds on merits, the instant writ application is fit to be allowed on the ground that principles of natural justice have not been complied, inasmuch as, though the Inquiry Officer has relied several documents in proving the charge, but unfortunately, those documents were never proved by oral evidence. 8. The issue with regard to role of Inquiry Officer and the documents which should be proved by oral evidence has been well 2025:JHHC:27717 5 settled way back in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank1. The same view was reiterated in the case of State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha2. Even recently, in the case of Satyendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh3 the same ratio has been reiterated. For better appreciation paras - 13, 15 and 17 of Satyendra Singh (supra) is quoted hereinbelow: “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 Bank and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat. ....... 15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 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 Sinha 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.” (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 1 (2009) 2 SCC 570 2 (2010) 2 SCC 772 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 2025:JHHC:27717 6 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.” 9. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that there was no oral evidence in order to substantiate the charge made against the delinquent. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that the documents which is said to be proved was not actually proved by any oral evidence as laid down in the above referred cases and the settled proposition of law. Thus, the impugned order requires interference; accordingly, the impugned orders dated 04.11.2015 and 20.07.2016, are hereby, quashed and set aside. 11. From para 41 of the writ application it appears that the petitioner has already superannuated on 31.07.2016; as such, remitting the case now in the year 2025 shall not be in the interest of justice. 12. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents are directed to calculate the monetary benefits in view of the fact that the impugned order of punishment has already been quashed, the same shall be extended to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 13. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending, I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-