2025:JHHC:17091-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No.144 of 2020 ----- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO, PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 3. The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO, PS- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 4. The Deputy Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO, PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 5. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh ....... … Respondents/Appellants Versus Mr. Man Mohan Prasad, son of late Muneshwar Prasad, Resident of Flat No.301, Jacson Plaza Apartment, Lalpur, PO & PS-Lalpur, District-Ranchi … … Writ Petitioner/Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ------- For the Appellant-State: Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III For the Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate ------ C.A.V on 16.06.2025 Pronounced on 26/06/2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 28.11.2019 passed in W.P(S) No.181 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder the impugned order dated 13.05.2015 contained in Memo No.4280 (Annexure-25 to the writ petition) and Resolution dated 20.12.2012 contained in Memo No.13920 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) are quashed and set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under: 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 2 (i) In the year, 2008 the petitioner (respondent herein) was posted as B.D.O, Churchu and in the same year one Tapas Soren has committed self immolation at Charhi Chowk and after that incident, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh vide order dated 02.07.2008 has directed Additional Collector, Land H.B, Hazaribagh, to conduct an enquiry and submit the report within a week. However, on the next day i.e. on 03.07.2008 vide letter No.01-Camp., the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh wrote a letter to the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand for taking administrative action against the petitioner with recommendation for putting him under suspension. (ii) Pursuant thereto, the matter was discussed among the senior officials of the personnel department and after obtaining consent from Hon'ble the Chief Minister, suspension order vide Memo No. 4040 dated 03.07.2008 was issued under pen and signature of the Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha with regard to incidence of self immolation of one Tapas Soren ignoring the fact that on 02.07.2008, a direction was issued to Addl. Collector by the same Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry and to submit the report within one week and on 03.07.2008, there was no report of Addl. Collector, which was submitted before the Deputy Commissioner. (iii) It is further the case of the petitioner that on 05.07.2008, vide Letter No. 7 Bhu.Ha., the Addl. Collector, after enquiry submitted a detailed enquiry report to Deputy Commissioner 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 3 wherein, petitioner was fully discharged from the allegation leveled against him. Further, the matter was enquired by the Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi and in the said enquiry also, the petitioner was discharged from the charges leveled against him, which is evident from the report dated 30.10.2008. (iv) Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner Hazaribagh vide order dated 08.07.2008, has appointed five Administrative Officers for conducting physical verification of the Well which were being constructed in Churchu Block ignoring the fact that all the Officers were not the Technical officer. Thereafter, they submitted physical verification report to Deputy Commissioner and after being dissatisfied with the work, the Deputy Commissioner. Hazaribagh prepared Prapatra 'K' and forwarded to the State Government vide Memo No. 27. (v) It is further case of the petitioner that after the confirmation of the Prapatra 'K', vide Resolution dated 28.04.2009, the Joint Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, issued notification for conducting Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner. The Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh was appointed as the Conducting Officer and on 03.08.2010, the petitioner submitted his written statement/reply to him. (vi) Subsequently, vide order dated 09.09.2010 contained in Memo No. 5434 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, the suspension of the 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 4 petitioner was vacated. On 07.05.2012, the Conducting Officer submitted the enquiry report to the Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative. Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, wherein petitioner has been exonerated from the charges leveled against him. (vii) Subsequently, on 12.07.2012, vide Memo No. 8119 second show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, petitioner submitted his reply to the Department on 06.08.2012 and 18.08.2012. Thereafter, after being unsatisfied to the reply of the petitioner, Deputy Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department vide Resolution dated 20.12.2012 contained in Memo No. 13920 awarded the punishment of withholding of three increments without cumulative effect without considering the reply of the petitioner. (viii) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before His Excellency, the then Governor of Jharkhand. Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary directed the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry and submit his report. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner after enquiry submitted his report and after being satisfied by the said report, the Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand observed that the petitioner has not been found guilty of the charges leveled against him and therefore, his case may be considered and punishment awarded to him may be set aside and the Appeal preferred by the petitioner be allowed and as such, 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 5 with this observation, file was forwarded for the consent of Hon'ble the Chief Minister. (ix) Thereafter, the Chief Minister, after certain queries to the Department, has given his consent and therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed and punishment imposed upon the petitioner has been set aside vide Extract of File dated 02.05.2014. (x) It is further case of the petitioner that surprisingly his file was reopened for review of the order of Hon'ble the Chief Minister dated 02.05.2014, wherein the petitioner has been discharged from all the charges and it was sent to Hon'ble the Chief Minister for review with forwarding note of the Principal Secretary. Pursuant thereto, vide Noting dated 30.07.2014, Hon'ble the Chief Minister returned back the file to the Personnel Department with observation that 'aforesaid proposal is against the earlier decision of the Government and for this whether a new fact has come. (xi) Again, the Deputy Secretary, forwarded the file for review the earlier order of Hon'ble the Chief Minister through the Principal Secretary. Pursuant thereto, the Hon'ble Chief Minister has observed in the said file that whether frequent change in the punishment order would not have adverse effect on administrative discipline and with this note, the file has been sent back vide noting dated 31.01.2015. (xii) However, on the basis of the same fact on which the petitioner has been exonerated earlier and by manipulating the same facts 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 6 as mentioned in Papatra 'K', the matter was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Minister and on 09.04.2015, Hon'ble the Chief Minister approved the same. On the basis of above mentioned notings, the petitioner has been awarded with the punishment of withholding of three increments without cumulative effect and same has been notified through Resolution dated 13.05.2015 contained in Memo No. 4280 issued by Deputy Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department. 3. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner after being punished by inflicting punishment of withholding of three increments without cumulative effect passed afresh on the basis of the order passed by the appellate authority has challenged the said punishment order by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.181 of 2016. 4. The learned Single Judge on the ground that the procedure as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of “Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra”, (1998) 7 SCC 84 has not been followed to the effect that even though the inquiry officer has not found the petitioner guilty and without providing an opportunity to defend himself on the point of difference of opinion, the order of punishment has been passed while allowing the writ petition has quashed and set aside the impugned order by holding that the petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits. 5. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State. Submission on behalf of the appellant-State: 6. In support of his contention, the learned State counsel has taken the following grounds: 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 7 (i) The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment has not appreciated the fact that the entire opportunity put forth in defence has been provided to the writ petitioner but the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. (ii) For that the order impugned dated 28.11.2019 is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. (iii) For that the impugned order dated 28.11.2019 is passed, ignoring the documents available records and thus, the same is based upon non consideration of facts available on record. In this on regard it is to specify that the Hon'ble single judge has hold that while giving second show cause to the delinquent, "the disciplinary authority have not assigned any reason for differing with the enquiry report." This finding of the learned Single Judge is absolutely erroneous and beyond the records. (iv) For that the impugned order dated 28.11.2019 is based upon non appreciation of judicial pronouncement, as the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/S Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr. Vs. D.D.A., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 180, that notings in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. (v) For that the learned Single Judge has erroneously given a conclusive finding that the writ petitioner was punished twice, as there is only one order of punishment issued and communicated in the instant matter. Hence, this finding of the learned Single Judge 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 8 is contrary to the records. That there is only one order of punishment issued and communicated in the instant matter. (vi) For that the learned writ Court has failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “State of A.P. Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao” reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 has held that "The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as Appellate Court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence are not reopened questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be." (vii) Similarly, in case of “B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India” (1995) 6 SCC 749 it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that "the power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The Court/Tribunal in its power of review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence." (viii) For that the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge has a different ratio from the facts of this case and as such not applicable in the present set of facts whereas, the judgment relied upon by the respondent State in the original writ petition is squarely covered and applicable in the present case. 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 9 (ix) For that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based upon fallacious interpretation of judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court which is not at all applicable in the present set of facts. (x) For that if the impugned order of the Hon'ble Single Judge be affirmed, the appellant/respondent State would suffer irreparable loss to the State exchequer and unwarranted litigations. (xi) For that the impugned order is, therefore, fit to be set aside for such other and further grounds which shall be raised at the time of hearing of this appeal. 7. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid ground, initially, has contested the case by showing the error in the impugned order. Submission on behalf of the Respondent: 8. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds: (i) The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Kunj Behari Mishra” (supra) has not been followed. (ii) It has been contended that while punishing the petitioner the principal of natural justice has been violated by the authority concerned. (iii) If the charge framed against the writ petitioner has not been found to be proved then there is no question of inflicting punishment of withholding three increments and not only that 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 10 there is no occasion for the authority concerned to issue second show cause notice. 9. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter as also by putting reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Kunj Behari Mishra” (supra) has passed the judgment and, thus, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis: 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge as also the order passed by the adjudicatory authority dated 13.05.2015. 11. The admitted fact herein is that the writ petitioner while working as Block Development Officer has been charge-sheeted by the disciplinary authority by inflicting the following irregularity committed by him: (क) श्री प्रसाद द्वारा अपने पदस्थापन के दौरान योजनाओं के ननरीक्षण एवं पययवेक्षण सही ढंग से नहीं नकया जाता था नजसके कारण प्रखण्ड के नवनिन्न योजनाओं का कायायन्वयन एवं गुणवत्ता सही ढंग से संचानित नहीं हो रहीं थी। चुरचू प्रखण्ड के अन्तगयत नरेगा के तहत् नसंचाई कू प ननर्ायण योजनाओं की जांच र्ें ननम्न त्रुनियााँ पाई गई :- (1) नसंचाई कू प ननर्ायण योजनाओं र्ें पंचायत इन्दा, हेसािौंग, हुआग, जरबा, हेत्सागढा र्ें कू प ननर्ायण की योजनाओं र्ें कायय से अनिक र्ापी नकया गया, कार् के अनुरूप कायय नहीं पाया गया एवं काययपूणय होने पर िी र्ापी नहीं िी गई। (2) 20° (निि) व्यास कू प ननर्ायण का जोडाई कायय नर्ट्टी से नकया पाया गया जबनक प्राक्किन के अनुत्तार कू प का जोडाई कायय प्रारम्भ र्ें 10' (निि) नर्ट्टी से एवं शेष सीर्ेंि से कराये जाने का प्राविान है। चुरचू प्रखण्ड र्ें किस्टर कू प ननर्ायण र्ें र्हज खाना-पूरी की गई और पैसे िार्ुक जो अनुसूनचत जानत एवं अनुसूनचत जनजानत के नहीं हैं, उन्हें िी किस्टर कू प नदया गया। कू प का ननर्ायण किस्टर र्ें न होकर पूरे गााँव के नवनिन्न स्थानों र्ें नकया गया। कू प का ननर्ायण खेत र्ें न करके घर के आाँगन र्ें नकया गया नजसके की नसंचाई का कार् नहीं निया जा सकता। 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 11 (ख) श्री प्रसाद द्वारा अपने अनिनस्थ कनर्ययों यथा पंचायत सेवक एवं कनीय अनियंता के र्ाध्यर् से नरेगा के नवनिन्न िािुकों से कर्ीशन के रूप र्ें नाजायज रानश वसूिा जाता था। (ग) श्री प्रसाद की िापरवाही एवं कत्तयव्यहीनता के कारण तापस सोरेन के ईिाज एवं र्ृत्यु के उपरान्त र्ुआवजा आनद का िुगतान करना पडा नजसके कारण सरकारी रानश का व्यय हुआ।“ 12. The said memorandum of charge was based upon the fact findings report. The inquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner has appeared before the inquiry officer and put forth his defence. 13. After inquiry, the inquiry officer has not found the charges proved against the writ petitioner which would be evident from the report of the inquiry officer, which reproduce as under: आदेश की क्र० स० और तारीख आदेश और पदानिकारी का हस्ताक्षर आदेश पर की कारयवाई के बारे र्ें निप्पणी तारीख सनहत यह नविागीय कारयवाई संकल्प सं० 2776 नद 28.04.09 के आिोक र्ें प्रारम्भ की गई थी और इसर्ें संचािन पदानिकारी के स्थानान्तरण होने के पश्चात कानर्यक प्रशासननक सुिार तथा राजिाषा नविाग के पत्र सं० 5249 नदनांक 2.09.2011 र्ें आंनशक संशोिन करते हुए र्ुझे संचािन पदानिकारी ननयुक्त नकया गया। तत्काि यह सांस्थस्थत नवत्त नविाग से स्थानान्तररत होकर 12.04.2012 को प्राप्त हुआ है। तथा इसर्ें प्रस्तोता पदानिकारी श्री नकस्टो कु र्ार बेसरा, प्रखण्ड नवकास पदानिकारी को नानर्त नकया गया है। आज ननिायररत सर्य पर आरोनपत पदानिकारी श्री र्नर्ोहन प्रसाद तथा प्रस्तोता पदानिकारी श्री नकस्टो कु र्ार बेसरा दोनों उपस्थस्थत है । आरोनपत पदानिकारी द्वारा सर्नपयत निस्थखत बचाव अनियान एवं साक्ष्य द्वारा प्रस्तोत पदानिकारी अंचि अनिकारी किकर्सांडी हजारीबाग श्री र्नीष कु र्ार द्वारा बताये गये आरोपों की जााँच की गई। 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 12 अनििेख सांस्थस्थक एवं नवत्त काययक्रर् के कायायिय से सुनवाई हेतु िेजा गया, तथा प्रस्तोत पदानिकारी श्री नकस्टो कु र्ार बेसरा प्रखण्ड नवकास पदानिकारी, चुरचू हजारीबाग पूवय से प्रस्तुत आदेश की प्रनत से आरोपों एवं साक्ष्यों से के संबंि र्ें सहनर्त जतायी । आरोप संख्या क :- आरोनपत पदानिकारी के पदस्थापन काि र्ें प्रखण्ड के नवनिन्न पंचायतों र्ें नरेगा के अन्तगयत जो कु प का ननर्ायण हो रहा था। वह र्ागयननदेनशका के अनुरूप नहीं है और न ही र्ापी अद्यतन इसकी जॉच कराई गई, नजसर्ें त्रुनि पाई गई । इस संबंि र्ें आरोनपत पदनिकारी द्वारा बताया गया नक नजस कनर्नि से जााँच कराई गई उसर्ें तकनीकी पदानिकारी नहीं थे । कू प ननर्ायण का प्रशासननक स्वीकृ नत उपायुक्त हजारीबाग द्वारा अक्टू बर 2007 र्ें नदया गया। तदनुसार िािुक से एग्रीर्ेण्ट कराकर कायय प्रारंि नकया गया । तत्कािीन उपायुक्त एवं नवकास आयुक्त द्वारा भ्रर्ण कर ननर्ायण हो रहे कू पों का ननरीक्षण नकया गया, नजसर्ें नकसी प्रकार की त्रुनि नहीं पाई गई। इसर्ें र्ेरा कोई दोष नहीं है । घनित घिना के बाद जब अपर सर्ाहताय िू हदबंदी, हजारीबाग एवं िारत सरकार के ग्रार्ीण नवकास र्ंत्रािय से िी इसकी जााँच कराई गई। उक्त दोनों जॉच पदानिकारी द्वारा ननर्ायण हो रहे कू पों से कािी संतुष्ट हुए नकसी प्रकार की त्रुनि नही पायी गई। इस प्रकार आरोप संख्या "क" संदेह से परे है। (जााँच प्रनतवेदन की छायाप्रनत संिग्न) पत्रांक 716 05/07/08 तथा श्री नागेश्वर शर्ाय एन०एि० एर्० का प्रनतवेदन नदनांक 30.06.2008 आरोप संख्या - ख एवं ग :- ये दोनों आरोप र्ुख्य प्रकरण से ही संबंनित है। इस आरोप के संबंि र्ें आरोनपत पदानिकारी द्वारा बताया गया नक जुिाई 2006 र्ें प्रखड नवकास पदानिकारी चुरचू का प्रिार ग्रहण नकया तथा र्ेरा काययकाि कािी संतोषजनक रहा, नकन्तु दुिायग्यवश नदनांक 02.07.2008 को राष्टर ीय ग्रार्ीण रोजगार गारण्टी के िािुक श्री तापस सोरेन, ग्रार् सडवाहा, िोिा बीराखाप, पंचायत-चरही द्वारा आत्मदाह का प्रयास नकया गया। घिना की सूचना नर्िते ही उपायुक्त हजारीबाग को सूनचत करते हुए बेहतर ईिाज के निए नदल्ली िेजा गया, जहााँ ईिाज के कर् र्ें नदनांक 08.07.2008 को उनकी र्ृत्यु हो गई । 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 13 उपिब्ध अनििेखों के सर्ीक्षोपरान्त पाया गया नक राष्टर ीय ग्रार्ीण रोजगार गारण्टी के िािुक श्री सोरेन को 20 िीि व्यास के कू प ननर्ायण की स्वीकृ नत दी गई थी, नजसकी अनििेख संख्या 06/07-08 है और इसकी प्राक्कनित रानश 163200.00 (एक िाख नतरसठ हजार दो सौ) रू० है। इस योजना के कायायन्वयन हेतु स्वीगीय सोरेन को नवनिन्न नतनथयों र्ें अनग्रर् के रूप र्ें 75000/ 15000 / एवं 50000 / कु ि 72500/ रू0 चेक द्वारा िुगतान नकया गया, जो स्व० सोरेन के युनाईिेड बैंक ऑि इस्थण्डया, चरही के खाता संख्या 6149 र्ें जर्ा हुआ, नजसर्ें से स्व० सोरेन द्वारा कु ि 37000 / रू० की ननकासी की गई जााँच के कर् र्ें सही पाया गया । परन्तु स्व० सोरेन के अद्यतन पासबुक से प्राप्त नकये गये स्टेिर्ेण्ट र्ें निन्नता पाई गई। (छायाप्रनत संिग्न) इस संबंि र्ें शाखा प्रबंिक से पूछताछ की गई तो बताया गया नक कम्प्यूिर के गित बिन दब जाने के कारण दू सरे खाते की प्रनवनष्ट स्व० सोरेन के खाते र्ें दजय हो गया। बाद र्ें प्रबंिक द्वारा स्व० सोरेन के खाते र्ें दजय अनिक रानश की प्रनवनष्ट संबंनित खाते र्ें की गयी। जब स्व० सोरेन को इस बात की जानकारी हुई तो उन्होनें कहा र्ेरा पैसा गित तरीके से ननकाि निया गया, इस कारण से िी स्व० सोरेन कािी परेशान थे। जााँच पदानिकारी द्वारा कायय स्थि पर जाकर जााँच की गई। वहााँ अनििेख र्ें संिाररत र्स्टर रौि जो कु ि 15206/ रू0 के संबंि र्ें र्नहिा श्रनर्क दशर्ी िुबू पनत तापस सोरेन, सुर्ो सोरेन नपता जिा र्ांझी बगैरह से सत्यापन नकया गया। इस संबंि र्ें दशर्ी िुडू ने बताया नक र्स्टर रौि पर गित हस्ताक्षर कर र्ेरा पैसा ननकाि निया गया है क्योनक र्ैं अगूठा का ननशान िगाती हाँ, नकन्तु डाकघर र्ें पैसे की प्रनवनष्ट सही पाई गई। स्थि जाच के कर् र्ें ग्रार्ीणों ने पंचायत सेवक श्री वृजनकशोर र्हतो एवं रोजगार सेवक पर कर्ीशन के रूप र्ें रू० िोने की बात कही गई । जॉच पदानिकारी द्वारा नदनांक 03.07.2008 को ररम्स जाकर ईिाज के निए एकरारनार्ा के पूवय पैसा निया गया और और बाद र्ें बी०डी०ओ० डी०सी० के नार् पर 20 प्रनतशत कर्ीशन की र्ांग की गई पंचायत सेवक ने एक बार र्ें 2500 / दू सरी बार र्ें 5000 / और 4000 / तथा अगिी बार 200 / अथायत कु ि 11700 / रू० निये। इस प्रकरण की जॉच ग्रार्ीण नवकास र्ंत्रािय िारत सरकार से िी करायी 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 14 गई, नजसर्ें आरोनपत पदानिकारी को दोषर्ुक्त पाया गया । पृष्ठ- 76/प दृष्टव्य आरोनपत पदानिकारी द्वारा इस संबंि र्ें बताया गया नक र्ार्िे की गंिीरता को देखते हुए उच्चानिकाररयों द्वारा आनन-िानन र्ें र्ार्िे का बगैर जाच कराए हुए तथा बगैर स्पष्टीकरण पूछे हुए सारा दोष र्ेरे उपर िगाते हुए एक ही नदन नदनांक 03.07.2008 को र्ुझे ननिंनबत करते हुए नविागीय काययवाही चिाने का आदेश नदया गया, जो न्यायसंगत नही है । उपायुक्त हजारीबाग द्वारा नदनांक 02.07.2008 को अपर सर्ाहताय िू हदबंदी हजारीबाग श्री बिदेव राज को घिना का नवस्तृत जााँच का आदेश नदया गया। जॉचोपरान्त अपर सर्ाहताय हजारीबाग द्वारा नदनांक 05.07.2008 को जााँच प्रनतवेदन सिनपयत नकया गया, नजसर्ें आरोप र्ुक्त पाया गया । (जॉच प्रनतवेदन संिग्न) अतः इस प्रकार सर्ीक्षोपरान्त पाया गया नक पंचायत सेवक, कनीय अनियंता एवं रोजगार सेवक द्वारा बार-बार कर्ीशन की र्ांग करने तथा बैंक द्वारा गित प्रनवनष्ट के वजह से स्व० तापस सोरेन कािी परेशान हो गये तथा नदनांक 02.07.2008 को आत्मदाह का प्रयास नकये और ईिाज के कर् र्ें उनकी र्ृत्यु हो गई। आरोनपत पदानिकारी श्री र्नर्ोहन प्रसाद, तत्कािीन प्रखण्ड नवकास पदानिकारी, चुरचू के नवरूद्ध न तो जााँच के कर् र्ें दोषी पाया गया और न ही ग्रार्ीण द्वारा सीिे तौर पर पैसा िेने की बात कही गई और नहीं स्व० सोरेन के बयान र्ें यह तथ्य सार्ने आया । (बयान की छायाप्रनत) पृष्ट - 130 / प द्रष्टव्य आरोनपत पदानिकारी द्वारा निस्थखत रूप से बचाव पक्ष रखने तथा दोनो पक्षों के सुनने के बाद यह पता हाँ नक श्री र्नर्ोहन प्रसाद, कोनि कर्ांक 529/07 झा०प्र०से० पर कोई सीिा आरोप पररिनक्षत नही होता है। नकन्तु प्रखंड के पदानिकारी होने के नाते के कारण जो िी त्रुनियों बताई गई इस पर पययवेनक्षय उत्तरदानयत्व इनका होना चानहए, नकन्तु इनके द्वारा जो िी गिती हुई उसके निए नौ र्ाह होिवार जेि र्ें रहना पडा वह सजा नकसी िी नविागीय कारयवाई र्ें होने वािे सजा से बहुत कडी सजा है। और अिी यह र्ार्िा न्यायािय र्ें नवचारािीन है। 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 15 अतः इनके निस्थखत बचाव व्यान पर सहानुिूनतपूवयक नवचार नकया गया। इनका कहना है नक जो िी पययवेक्षकीय उत्तरदानयत्व इनके अंदर आता है उसके आिार पर उपरोक्त सजा पयायप्त से अनिक है। जैसे ये िुगत चुके है अतः आगे कोई दण्डात्मक काययवाही करना उनचत नही होगा । र्ुझे िी यही उनचत प्रतीत होता है नक इन्हें जेि र्ें नबताई गई अवनि के ननिम्बन के अनतररक्त अन्य कोई सजा की संस्तुनत नही की जा सकती है नकन्तु यह इनके नवरुद्ध, चि रहे आपरानिक र्ुकदर्ें के निये कोई आिार नहीं होगा । ह0/- डा. ए. के . पाण्डेय, (संचािन पदानिकारी), राज्यपाि के प्रिान सनचव, झारखण्ड, रााँची । 14. It is evident from the factual aspect that the second show cause notice has been issued by giving the cause to explain as to why his three annual increments without cumulative effect be not withheld. 15. The writ petitioner has given his reply pointing out the fact that the inquiry officer since has not found the charges proved against him and, as such, based upon the said report he cannot be punished. But the disciplinary authority without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact has passed the order of punishment by withholding three annual increments of the petitioner without cumulative effect which is impugned before the learned Single Judge. 16. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order of punishment, has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Governor as provided under the Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The Hon’ble Governor has passed an order by reverting the 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 16 order of punishment withholding three annual increments without cumulative effect, however, with the approval of the Chief Minister. 17. The facts remain, therefore, that the charge has not been proved against the writ petitioner as would be evident from the inquiry report. The law is well-settled as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Kunj Behari Misra” (Supra). In that case, it has been propounded that in a case where the charge has not been proved by the inquiry officer the authority has to inflict punishment but before inflicting such punishment the requirement will be to differ with the opinion of the inquiry report based upon the reason and the opportunity is to be given to the delinquent employee to make representation on the issue of difference of opinion with the inquiry report, wherein at paragraph-18 it has been held as under: “18. Under Regulation 6, the enquiry proceedings can be conducted either by an enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority itself. When the enquiry is conducted by the enquiry officer, his report is not final or conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with the decision of the disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary authority which can impose the penalty and not the enquiry officer. Where the disciplinary authority itself holds an enquiry, an opportunity of hearing has to be granted by him. When the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the enquiry officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous that where the charged officers succeed before the enquiry officer, they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the enquiry officer's report and, while recording a finding of guilt, imposes punishment on the officer. In our opinion, in any such situation, the charged officer must have an opportunity to represent before the disciplinary authority before final findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed. This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of enquiry as 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 17 explained in Karunakar case [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] .” 18. The admitted fact of the present case is that the disciplinary authority, while differing with the finding of the enquiry officer, has not mentioned the reason for differing with the finding of the enquiry officer, then a question would arise that on what basis the punishment has been imposed that too without following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Kunj Behari Misra” (Supra). 19. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid fact as would be evident from the finding recorded in the impugned order, wherein the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration that the disciplinary authority has not assigned any reasons for differing with the enquiry report and as such, punishment inflicted against the petitioner is non est in the eyes of law. 20. Further the learned single Judge has also taken in to consideration that no man should be put twice in parity for same offence meaning thereby person, who has been previously acquitted on the same charge on which he is being prosecuted earlier, he would not be punished twice. 21. This Court, on consideration of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and on the basis of the admitted fact that inspite of the fact the inquiry officer has not found the charge proved against the writ petitioner three annual increments of the writ petitioner without cumulative effect has been withheld by the disciplinary authority, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has not erred in passing the order by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.05.2015 contained in Memo No.4280 (Annexure-25 to the writ petition) and 2025:JHHC:17091-DB 18 Resolution dated 20.10.2012 contained in Memo No.13290 (Annexure- 14 to the writ petition). 22. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(S) No.181 of 2016 and, consequently, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 23. Accordingly, L.P.A No.144 of 2020 stands dismissed and disposed of as such. 24. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Sudhir Dated:26th/06/2025 Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi AFR