2026:JHHC:17491-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 534 of 2024 With I.A. No. 11040 of 2024 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ranchi 4. The Under Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Ranchi ... ... Appellants Versus Ram Sewak Rana, S/o Late Mahabir Rana, R/o Village-Akurahan, PO & PS-Chauparan, District-Hazaribagh At present: Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (VAT Audit Unit), Dhanbad and Santhal Pargana Division, Dhanbad ... … Respondent ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Appellants : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC-IV For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate ----- Order No. 05 Dated: 17.06.2026 I.A. No. 11040 of 2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application seeks condonation of the delay of 175 days in filing the accompanying appeal. 3. We have perused the averments. Though the reasons are not very satisfactory, still, by adopting a liberal approach, the cause shown could be regarded as sufficient in the peculiar facts of the present case. The delay is also not inordinate. 4. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and I. A is disposed of. L.P.A. No. 534 of 2024 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. By a separate order, we have condoned the delay in filing the 2026:JHHC:17491-DB 2 appeal and proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal. 7. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned Single Judge in his impugned order dated 13.02.2024 has mistaken the note-sheet to be the enquiry report. He submitted that the actual enquiry report, which is now placed on record along with the supplementary affidavit, shows that at least two charges were proved against the respondent-officer. He pointed out that, therefore, this was not the case of disagreement between the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, and consequently, there was no requirement of either furnishing the copy of the enquiry report to the respondent or giving the respondent an opportunity to show cause. 8. Mr A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that even from the perusal of the enquiry report, which the respondent had to obtain under R.T.I. Act, it is evident that none of the charges has been proved against the respondent. He submitted that some vague observations about lack of tact or administrative incompetence do not amount to proof of the charges. 9. Mr Sahani submitted that in any event, a copy of the enquiry report had to be furnished to the respondent because, based upon the same, not only was a penalty of censure imposed upon the respondent, but further, this penalty resulted in the denial of promotion to the respondent. 10. Accordingly, Mr. Sahani submitted that there is no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. More so, because the respondent has now 2026:JHHC:17491-DB 3 already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and the direction is only to consider the case of the respondent for promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted. 11. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12. On the perusal of the impugned judgment and order, we cannot say with certainty that the learned Single Judge has confused the departmental notings with the enquiry report. However, even if it is assumed so, upon perusal of the enquiry report, now produced on record along with the supplementary affidavit, it is difficult to hold that any of the charges have been proved against the respondent. 13. From the paragraphs highlighted to us by Mr Indranil Bhaduri, all we find is that the enquiry officer has made certain comments, such as administrative incompetence or a lack of tact, in relation to two of the charges. Based on this, it cannot be held that the charges levelled against the respondent were proved. In relation to the other charges, there is a clear exoneration. 14. The contention that the disciplinary authority has not disagreed with the enquiry officer's findings also cannot be accepted. The disciplinary authority has interpreted the enquiry officer’s report as holding that at least two charges were proved against the respondent. Before reaching such a conclusion, it was imperative to comply with the principles of natural justice. This is particularly so when the actual enquiry report is examined, which does not hold that the two charges were proved against the respondent. 15. In any event, since the penalty has been imposed upon the respondent, it was imperative to furnish a copy of the enquiry 2026:JHHC:17491-DB 4 report to the respondent. This was admittedly not done. The respondent had to apply for such a report under the R.T.I. Act by which time, the penalty was already imposed upon the respondent. 16. Although a penalty of censure was imposed, the respondent was denied promotion based on that penalty. Now that it is found that the imposition of a penalty was itself in violation of the principles of natural justice, the penalty was correctly set aside, and directions were issued to consider the case of the respondent for promotion in accordance with law from the date on which his juniors were promoted. 17. This is a matter concerning the imposition of the penalty of censure and consequent denial of promotion. The State is proceeding against an officer who has already retired from service. There is no serious issue of law involved in the matter. Therefore, we are a little surprised that the State should file such an L.P.As and pursue them. 18. Be that as it may. Upon evaluating the two contentions raised before us and for the reasons referred to above, we find no merit in this L.P.A. This L.P.A. is accordingly dismissed without any order for costs. Any other I.As, if pending, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 17, 2026 Manish/Ritesh N.A.F.R Uploaded on 20.06.2026