( 2026:JHHC:18956 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 3918 of 2024 ---- Dr. Haribansh Kumar Singh, son of Late Rajniti Prasad Singh, aged about 70 years, retired from the post of Professor, Department of P.S.M, Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad, resident of Flat No. A/1 Sneha Apartment, near Govt. Middle School, Kolakusma, P.O& P.S K.G. Ashram, District Dhanbad .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O&P.S Doranda, District Ranchi 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O& P.S Doranda, District Ranchi .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Navin Kr., Advocate : Mr. Anjani Kr., Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC-GAIII --- 04/ Dated: 23.06.2026 1. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following relief(s)- i. For quashing of Notification No.614(18) dated 22.09.2022 [Annexure-7] issued by Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, whereby the punishment of 15% deduction from pension of petitioner for 10 years has been imposed in spite of the fact that there is no financial loss to the Govt. which is requirement under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule and also the similar situated person namely Dr. Anil Kumar Choudhary the then Superintendent, P.M.C.H. who has ( 2026:JHHC:18956 ) issued work order has been imposed punishment of censure against the principle of parity. ii. During the pendency of the writ petition the Hon'ble Court shall stay the Notification No.614(18) dated 22.09.2022 [Annexure-7]. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he retired from service in the year 2021 and after his retirement, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and he has been imposed punishment for reduction of 15% of pension for 10 years. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the one hand; there was no oral witness to prove the documents/charges against this petitioner and the Inquiry Officer himself became the representative of the department. 4. Secondly, there is no finding with regard to quantum of punishment, inasmuch as, in the second show-cause the proposed punishment was for reduction of 50% of pension. However, in the final order it is only 15% reduction of pension, and the law is well-settled that the authority will have to give the specific finding. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the departmental proceeding was initiated after his retirement, but it was well within the purview of 43(b) of Pension Rules and the documents have been proved. However, he could not dispute the fact that there was no oral witness examined on behalf of the department, as such he submits that if the Court wants to interfere with the order on the ground of procedural irregularity, then the same may be remitted to the disciplinary authority. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, and after going through the charge-sheet and also the enquiry report, it is clear that the Inquiry officer has not examined any witness in order to prove the documents indicated in the charge-sheet, and the Inquiry officer himself became the representative of the ( 2026:JHHC:18956 ) Government instead of being an umpire. The law is well-settled that any document/charge has to be proved by oral witness. 7. Looking to the nature of charge, interest of justice would be sufficed by quashing the impugned order and remitting the same to the disciplinary authority. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.09.2022, is hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to continue the enquiry from the stage of examination of witness and pass the final order within a period of 16 weeks. 9. However, it is made clear that since the petitioner has already retired, as such, if the final order is not passed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; the entire monetary benefits which has been withheld due to the order of punishment shall be paid to the petitioner on the culmination of 16 weeks. 10. As a result, the instant application stands partly allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. 23.06.2026 (Deepak Roshan, J.) Abha/-