2026:JHHC:17644 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 432 of 2025 Raghunandan Thakur, aged about-56 years, Son of- Bindeshwari Thakur, Resident of- Near Chitkohra Bazar, 264, Vishnupuri, Anisabad, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S-Gardanibag, District- Patna, Bihar. ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Commissioner, Department of Transport, Govt. of Jharkhand, At Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Joint Transport Commissioner, Govt. of Jharkhand, FFP Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Transport Commissioner-cum Secretary, South Chhotanagpur Divisional Transport Authority, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Under Secretary-cum-Drawing and Disbursal Department, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand, At- FFP Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. The District Transport Officer, Garhwa, P.O.+ P.S.-Garhwa, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand. ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C)-II -------- JUDGMENT C.A.V on 13/05/2026 Pronounced on 15/06/2026 The instant writ application has been initially preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1. A. For a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties and to pay the salary of the petitioner as he has already given joining in his parent department way back on 21.09.2023 but since then the matter has been kept pending inspite of several reminders of the petitioner. And/or B. Further prays for issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the fact and circumstances of the case for doing conscientious Justice to the petitioner.” 2. This Court vide order dated 01.05.2026 allowed the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 6091 of 2026, whereby the order of termination from service dated 06.12.2024 has also been made impugned. 2026:JHHC:17644 2 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Mobile Squad Constable in Transport Department. On 12.10.2023, he was served with Letter No. 698, whereby he was directed to clarify with regard to charges of unauthorized absence issued against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation about his absence vide reply dated 18.10.2023. Vide order dated 22.05.2024, the petitioner came to know that the Inquiry officer has given his opinion in the departmental proceeding. Thereafter, by issuance of Letter No. 1172 dated 30.08.2024, a show-cause was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted his explanation vide letter dated 04.09.2024 duly received in the office of respondent- authorities. Further, the petitioner has given joining in his parent department way back on 21.09.2023 but since then the matter has been kept pending in spite of several reminders of the petitioner. 4. As aforesaid, initially writ application was filed praying for a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge his duty and also for payment of salary. During midst of proceeding, in the counter affidavit, order of punishment has been annexed which has been finally assailed by making an amendment application and the said application was allowed as aforesaid. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no proper departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he has not received any charge-memo. Only during the enquiry proceeding, the petitioner received few letters with regard to pendency of the departmental proceeding to which he duly replied that he was seriously ill and was not able to join the duty. However, the Inquiry Officer, without considering the reply to the show-cause submitted by the petitioner, in summary manner, has terminated the service of the petitioner taking recourse of Rule 76 of Jharkhand Service Code, inasmuch as, the petitioner was absent for almost 7 years but the fact remains that the charges have not been proved by any oral evidence and there was no specific charge with regard to Rule 76 of the Jharkhand Service Code. Learned counsel for the 2026:JHHC:17644 3 petitioner reiterates that none of the grounds which have been taken by the petitioner has been considered by the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority has terminated the petitioner from service. 6. The case of the respondents is that there is no procedural error in the departmental proceeding and the petitioner remained absent for almost 7 years and a charge-memo was duly issued and as a matter of fact even a Press Release was given requesting the petitioner to join his duty but he failed to do so and the departmental proceeding was conducted fully in accordance with law. Since the petitioner remained absent for more than 5 years as such, he was rightly terminated from service. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record coupled with the order-sheet of this case it appears that on 12.05.2026, learned counsel for the respondent- State was directed to bring original record before the Court in order to show that charge-memo was issued to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the matter was posted on 13.05.2026 and the original record was perused by this Court and returned to the State counsel. 8. From record of the entire proceeding, it appears that a charge-memo was issued against this petitioner on 07.12.2020 wherein Parapatra-Ka has been annexed. From bare perusal of Prapatra-Ka which is Annexure-1 to the charge-memo dated 07.12.2020 it appears that since the petitioner did not obey the order of transfer dated 30.05.2016 to join at the Head- quarter, he has been proceeded for dereliction of duty and unauthorized absence. 9. Further, from Annexure-3 to the charge-memo it appears that there was no oral witness who has been examined as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments including the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha”1 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even in an ex-parte enquiry, the charges have to be proved by oral witness and the documents relied upon by the 1 (2010) 2 SCC 772 2026:JHHC:17644 4 employer cannot be deemed to be proved in absence of the oral witness and the Inquiry officer has to act an umpire and not as the representative of the employer. 10. Further, from scrutiny of the enquiry report, copy of which was submitted during course of hearing by the State counsel, it appears that the history of the petitioner has been given in detail, inasmuch as, the details of letters issued to the petitioner with regard to his joining to the Head- quarter and reminders which were also given to the petitioner and also the detail of Press Release. The Inquiry officer has also given reference and admitted that the petitioner appeared in the enquiry proceeding on 19.10.2023 and submitted his explanation with regard to his illness. As a matter of fact, the Inquiry officer has elaborately given reference of the medical certificates of different doctors. 11. However, instead of proving the documents which has been mentioned in the charge-memo by any oral evidence and also without giving any finding upon the contention of the petitioner given before him, he has proceeded to prove the allegation on the ground of Rule 76 of the Jharkhand Service Code. 12. As stated hereinabove, no documents were proved by any oral witness and merely on the basis of a letter of the presenting officer the charges have been proved ignoring the contention of the petitioner that he was seriously ill. In fact, from bare perusal of the last portion of the enquiry report it appears that the Inquiry officer was misdirected by the Rule 76 of the Jharkhand Service Code and held the charges to be proved without giving any finding and without taking any oral evidence. 13. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to state that in this particular case, oral witness was necessary because there was a specific stand of the petitioner that he has not received the charge-memo and he was continuously absent due to the reason beyond his control. Even otherwise, the law with regard to proving the documents in a departmental proceeding by oral witness is well settled that no document can be deemed 2026:JHHC:17644 5 to be proved unless it is proved by the oral witness (refer, “Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank” 2 , “Saroj Kumar Sinha” (supra), “Satyendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.” 3, “Jai Prakash Sainy v. Managing Director, U.P Cooperative Federation Ltd.” 4etc.). 14. As aforesaid, the Inquiry officer has also not considered the grounds taken by the petitioner in his defence. For brevity, relevant portion of the enquiry report is extracted hereinbelow: “fcgkj lsok lafgrk ds fu;e&76 esa Li"V vafdr gS fd tcrd fd fdlh ekeys dh [kkl ifjfLFkr;ksa dks ns[krs gq,] jkT; ljdkj vU;Fkk fu/kkZfjr u djsa] ljdkjh lsod Hkkjr esa ckg~; lsok dks NksM+dj vU;= Nqêh ds lkFk ;k fcuk Nqêh ds dÙkZO; ls ikap o"kZ yxkrkj vuqifLFkfr ds ckn] ljdkjh fu;kstu esa ugha jg tkrk % ¼d½ fdlh Hkh ljdkjh lsod dks yxkrkj ikap o"kZ ls vf/kd vof/k ds fy, fdlh izdkj dh Nqêh Lohd`r ugha dh tk,xhA ¼[k½ vxj dksbZ ljdkjh lsod yxkrkj ikap o"kZ rd Nqêh ij jgus ds ckn viuk dÙkZO; xzg.k u djs ;k vxj ljdkjh lsod] fons'k lsok fuyEcu dh fLFkfr NksM+dj viuh Nqêh dh vof/k ds ckn Hkh ,slh vof/k ds fy, tks mls nh xbZ Nqêh dh vof/k ds fy, tks mls nh x;h Nqêh dh vof/k ds lkFk ikap o"kZ ls vf/kd gks ls vuqifLFkr jgs rks mls ;fn jkT; ljdkj vU;Fkk uk pkgs] lsok ls flfoy lfoZlst ¼fMlhIyhu ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 1995 esa fofgr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj gVk fn;k tk,xkA budh dqy vuqifLFkfr dh vof/k fnukad 31@05@2016 ls 20@09@2023 rd dqy lkr o"kZ rhu ekg ,oa 20 fnu gksrh gS] lkFk gh bUgsa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dh vof/k esa fuyafcr Hkh ugha fd;k x;kA lsok&lafgrk ds fu;e&76 ds varxZr ;fn budks fuyafcr fd;k x;k gksrk rks fu;e&76 ds varxZr ;g izHkkoh ugha gksrkA tkap&lg&lapkyu inkf/kdkjh dk earO;&pwafd budh dqy lsok ls vuqifLFkr ¼dk;Zdky½ dh vof/k lkr o"kksZa ls vf/kd gS vr,o ;s ljdkjh lsok esa jgus ;ksX; ugha jg x, gSaA vr% l{ke izkf/kdkjh ;g fu.kZ; ysus ds fy, Lora= gSa fd mUgsa ljdkjh lsok ls eqDr fd;k tk ldrk gSA” 15. Further, even the disciplinary authority did not consider the grounds taken by the petitioner in his reply to show-cause. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned order requires interference for the following reasons: (i) No oral witness has been examined by the Inquiry officer which is condi- tion precedent in order to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent. (ii) None of the documents has been proved, inasmuch as, save and except the Press Release, the letters which have been relied upon by the Inquiry officer cannot be deemed to be proved in absence of any receipt or proof by 2 (2009) 2 SCC 570 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 4 2026 SCC OnLine SC 505 2026:JHHC:17644 6 oral witness in the background that the petitioner has denied the receipt of such letters. (iii) The petitioner has taken specific ground that why he was not able to join service; however, none of the grounds which have though been incorporated in the enquiry report and also has been mentioned in the order impugned; no finding has been given. (iv) From the entire impugned order, it is crystal clear that no reason has been assigned, save and except Rule 76 of the Jharkhand Service Code, and as such it is held that the same is non-speaking and non-reasoned order. 16. Having regard to the above, the impugned order dated 06.12.2024, is hereby, quashed and set-aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith, but in any case, not beyond the period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order at the Headquarter where he was initially posted in the year 2016; however, in the factual backdrop of the case, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed in this matter from the stage of enquiry proceeding by adducing witnesses and allowing the petitioner to cross-examine them and then proceed accordingly. 17. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any back wages because, admittedly, he was absent for more than 5 years. However, after his reinstatement, he would be entitled for full salary. 18. The instant writ application is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. 19. Pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 15/06/2026 Amit N.A.F.R Uploaded on 18/06/2026