( 2026:JHHC:18960 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 5079 of 2024 ---- Madan Mohan Prasad, aged about 70 years, S/O Late Suryabansh Sharma, Retired Director-in-Chief [Drugs Control]/State Drug Controller, P.O. Namkum, P.S. Namkum, District: Ranchi, Jharkhand (834010). Presently, residing at Flat No. 301, Vats Enclave, North Avenue, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand (Pin-834009). … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O:- Doranda, PS:- Doranda, District:- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Principal Secretary Department of Personnel, Administrative Reform and Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O:- Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District: Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, PS:- Doranda, District:- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. The Deputy Secretary of the Government, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, PO: Doranda, PS:- Doranda, District:- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 7. The Treasury Officer, Doranda Treasury, P.O:- Doranda, P.S:-Doranda, District:- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 8. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, P.O:- Doranda, PS:- Doranda, District:- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 9. Mr. Arun Kumar Singh (IAS), the then Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare (Government of Jharkhand)-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Nepal House, PO: Doranda, PS: Doranda, District:- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 10. Mr. Gosai Oraon, Enquiry Officer, Dhurwa, PO: Dhurwa, PS:-Dhurwa, District:- Ranchi, Jharkhand. .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Kumar Mehta, Advocate : Mr. Karan Shahdeo, AC to SC-II ( 2026:JHHC:18960 ) --- 06/ Dated: 23.06.2026 1. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following relief(s)- i. To set aside the Resolution contained in Memo No. 67(18) dated 30.01.2014 (Annexure-3), issued under the previous day of Petitioner's superannuation, under the Signature of the Respondent No. 6 (Deputy Secretary to the Government) whereby and "Departmental Proceeding initiated under Rule - 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (in short CCA Rules, 1930] as well as "Memo of Charge" issued simultaneously against the Petitioner. ii. To set aside the Amended Resolution dated 01/02/2014 contained in Memo No. 106(18) dated 12/02/2014 (ANNEXURE- 4) issued under the Signature of Respondent No. 6 (the Deputy Secretary to the Government) whereby and whereunder the Departmental Proceeding against the Petitioner altered to Rule- 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules in the wake of superannuation of the Petitioner on 31/01/2014 iii. To set aside the Enquiry Report supplied to the Petitioner vide Letter No. 54(18) dated 25/01/2022 [ANN-10] issued under the Signature of Respondent No. 5 (The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand) iv. To set aside the Memo No.262(18) dated 04.05.2022 [ANNEXURE-15] issued under the signature of Respondent No.5 (The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand) whereby and whereunder in the wake of the Department Proceedings Penalty in the form of deduction of 50% pension of the petitioner for the life time has been imposed. v. To set aside the order contained in Memo No.1418 dated 05/11/2022 [ANNEXURE-19] whereby and whereunder the Senior Audit Officer issued direction to the Treasury Officer in the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand to comply the Order of deduction of 50% of Petitioner's Pension till life. vi. To direct the Respondents concerned to pay full pension to the Petitioner vii. To direct the Respondents concerned to refund the amount with interest deducted from the Petitioner's Pension in Compliance with the Memo No.262(18) dated 04/05/2022 [ANNEXURE-15] issued under the signature of Respondent No 5 viii. To quash the Notification contained in File No. 481(18) dated 02/08/2022 issued under the Signature of the signature of Respondent No.5 (Joint Secretary, Department of Health, ( 2026:JHHC:18960 ) Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand) whereby and whereunder Petitioner's mistaken Appeal before the Respondent No. 2 (The Chief Secretary) was dismissed. ix. To Pass Appropriate Order Against the Respondent Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority for conducting the Disciplinary Proceedings contrary to Constitutional and Statutory Provisions resulting into loss and prejudice to the Petitioner 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1979 as Drug Inspector in the Health Department, and on the verge of his retirement in the year 2014, a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 30.1.2014, and consequently, after the proceedings, a punishment of withholding 50% pension for life- time has been imposed upon the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made two fold arguments: i. No oral witness has been examined in order to prove the charge. ii. There is no finding in the order of punishment as to why the quantum of 50% deduction has been made. 4. Learned counsel further submits that Rule 43(b) empowers the State Government with the right to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it. Thus, these words i.e. “full or any part” of withholding of pension categorically indicates that there has to be some finding as to why a particular amount of pension has to be deducted. Accordingly, this impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality in the issuance of the charge-sheet, in view of the fact that the same was issued while the petitioner was in service and the enquiry proceeding was conducted in accordance with law and following principle of natural justice, as such, no interference is required. ( 2026:JHHC:18960 ) 6. However, learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that there was no oral witness in order to prove the charge levelled against this petitioner. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order requires interference for two reasons: i. The law is well-settled that no charge can be proved in absence of oral-witness. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010)2 SCC 772, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that even in an ex-parte enquiry, the document has to be proved by oral witness. In other words, examination of witness is a condition precedent to prove any charge/document, and the Inquiry-Officer cannot become representative of the department, rather he has to act as an umpire. ii. So far as, deduction of 50% of pension as imposed by the disciplinary authority is concerned; it also appears to be bad in law, in view of the fact that there is no finding at all as to why the 50% of pension is being deducted, and as such, when the Rules says that the government is empowered to deduct full or partial payment of pension, then this Court is of the considered view that there has to be some finding with regard to the quantum of percentage which is to be deducted. 8. In normal circumstances, the case of procedural irregularity should be remitted to the concerned authority, but in the instant case, the petitioner has retired in the year 2014 itself i.e. more than 12 years ago, therefore, remitting the case for fresh enquiry will further harass the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 30.01.2014, 01.02.2014, 25.01.2022, 04.05.2022, 05.12.2022 and 02.08.2022, are hereby, quashed and set aside. ( 2026:JHHC:18960 ) 10. The respondents are directed to make the necessary payments to the petitioner which has been deducted pursuant to the impugned order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. 12. Pending I.As’ if any, also stand disposed of. 23.06.2026 (Deepak Roshan, J.) Abha/-