2025:JHHC:25571 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 2427 of 2017 ------- Mukesh Kumar Singh, s/o. Late Ranjit Prasad Singh, resident of- B/12, B.I.T. Sindri, P.O. Sindri Institute, P.S. Sindri, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand). ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Principal Secretary, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District - Ranchi. 3. Technical Education, Directorate, though its director, Technical Education Department, Department of Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District - Ranchi. 4. Under Secretary, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department (Technical Education, Directorate) Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District - Ranchi. 5. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District - Dhanbad. 6. District Account Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District - Dhanbad. 7. B.I.T. Sindri, P.O.- Sindri Institute, P.S- Sindri, District- Dhanbad. (Jharkhand). 8. Director, B.I.T. Sindri, P.O. Sindri Institute, P.S-Sindri, District- Dhanbad. (Jharkhand). 9. Accounts Officer, B.I.T. Sindri, P.O.- Sindri Institute, P.S- Sindri, District-Dhanbad. (Jharkhand). 10. Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt of Jharkhand through its Principle Secretary, Project Bhawan P.O and P.S Dhurwa District- Ranchi. (Newly added Respondent). ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate For the State : Mr. K.K. Singh, SC-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V For the BIT Sindri : Mr. M.K. Roy, Advocate Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate ---- 13/ 20.08.2025 The instant writ application was initially preferred for quashing the office order dated 10.01.2017 (Annexure-7), whereby the pay-scale of the petitioner has been reduced from Rs.5200-20200 with G.P. Rs.2400/- to Rs.5200-20200 with G.P. Rs.1900/-. 2025:JHHC:25571 2 During course of proceeding, respondents have also issued corrigendum dated 15.01.2019 (Annexure-11), whereby they have explained the 1st impugned order (Annexure-7) by justifying that the reduction of scale of the petitioner is in accordance with the rules and regulations. Further, the respondents have also degraded the post of the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is solely on the ground that the impugned Order dated 10.01.2017 (Annexure-7) has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and further, when there was stay in the further proceeding of recovery, the respondents have also issued a corrigendum dated 15.01.2019 by justifying their stand; however, the fact remains that the said order has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. 3. From the amended writ application, it appears that in para- 30(i), the petitioner has specifically contended that the action has been taken without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. For brevity, para-30(i) and para-33 of the amended writ application is extracted herein below: “30.(i) That, it is stated that during the pendency of the writ application, and after passing the order dated 12.06.2017 and 03.01.2019 by this Hon'ble Court in this case, the respondent no. 3 issued corrigendum vide letter no. 49/Ranchi dated 15.01.2019 whereby and whereunder on the basis of objection raised by the Audit Team of the Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand has made amendment in the office order as contained in Memo No. - S.T./EST. (B.I.T) -23/09 320/Ranchi dated 18.02.2010 and changed the post of the petitioner from Assistant Librarian to Lower Division Clerk and has also reduced the grade pay of the petitioner from Rs. 2400 to Rs. 1900 without providing any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and even during the pendency of the writ application and after issuance of said letter respondent no. 8 vide office order no. 615 dated 12.12.2020 has changed the post of petitioner as Lower Division Clerk and posted him in Computer Science and Eng Department. 33. That, it would be also evident from the facts stated above that impugned order of deduction of grade pay as well as recovery of the amount already paid to the petitioner from salary has been passed by the respondents without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and as such impugned order (Annexure) is illegal thus fit to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court.” 4. After perusing the two counter-affidavits on behalf of the respondents, it appears that those paragraphs referred herein above 2025:JHHC:25571 3 have not been controverted by the respondents. Even during course of hearing, there is no such submission with regard to giving opportunity to the petitioner. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that before issuance of Annexure-7, the petitioner was even noticed once. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear case of non-compliance of natural justice because it is settled proposition of service jurisprudence that if any order passed against an employee which is having civil consequences, the opportunity of hearing has to be given before passing the order of punishment. 6. As such, without going into the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 (Annexure-7) and corrigendum dated 15.01.2019 (Annexure-11) are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the concerned respondent, who shall issue fresh notice to this petitioner and after hearing him and after perusing the applicable rules and regulations, which was prevalent at that time, shall take a fresh decision with regard to eligibility of pay-scale of the petitioner. It goes without saying that petitioner shall not take any adjournment so that the fresh proceeding may not be delayed by any person. Further, if the petitioner produces the copy of this order, that would be deemed to be notice to the petitioner and date for further proceeding may be fixed on that very day. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal