2026:JHHC:19162 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2418 of 2019 ---------- Saraswati Devi aged about 59 years, wife of Harihar Ram, resident of Ahir Purwa, P.O: Nagar Untari, Dist: Garhwa (Jharkhand). ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, at P.O & P.S: Garhwa, Dist: Garhwa. 3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate-cum Chairman of District Establishment Committee, Garhwa, at & P.O: Garhwa, Dist: Garhwa 4. The Establishment Deputy Collector, Garhwa, at & P.O & P.S: Garhwa, Dist: Garhwa 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, at P.O & P.S: Nagar Untari, Dist: Garhwa. 6. The Block Development Officer, Majhiaon, P.O & P.S: Majhiaon, Dist: Garhwa 7. The Commissioner, Palamau Division, Palamau, P.O & P.S: Daltonganj, Dist: Palamau (Newly added. respondent) ………. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr.SC-II Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr.SC-II ---------- 29/ 30.06.2026 The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction (s) particularly in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents particularly respondent no. 6 to immediately and forthwith send to this Hon'ble Court all the records appertaining to the issuance of order vide memo no. 386 dated 3/6/2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate being the Chairman of the District Establishment Committee, wherein the husband of the petitioner has been dismissed from service by imposing of a major penalty on a finding that while he was working as a clerk he has misappropriate government money and as such in pursuance to the Rule 14(4) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016, the said order of dismissal has been issued as against the husband of petitioner and it has further been held to come into effect immediately, the said order was issued vide Memo No. 386 dated 3/6/2017. (ii) Thereafter a humble prayer is being made before this Hon'ble Court to quash/set aside the order issued vide Memo No. 386 dated 3/6/2017, as being completely, illegal, arbitrary and a blatant misuse 2026:JHHC:19162 2 of power. (iii) For direction upon the respondents to make payment of all back wages and all consequential benefits to which the husband of the petitioner would have been entitled on quashment of the Memo No. 386 dated 3/6/2017 is illegal passed as against him while he was alive. (iv) Further a prayer is being made before this Hon'ble Court to immediately and forthwith consider for compassionate appointment of son of the petitioner namely Shankar Paswan in view of the fact that the husband of the petitioner was only bread earner in the family, who met untimely death because of wrong order of the dismissal as well as termination from service, pendency of criminal case and mental agony suffered by him. (v) A humble prayer is being made before this Hon'ble Court for quashing/setting aside of the order dated 5/3/2020 passed by the learned Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medninagar, as being completely illegal and arbitrary. 2. Sans details, a charge-sheet was issued against this petitioner and after the proceeding, he has been terminated from service. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the entire proceeding, no witness has been examined in order to prove the charge which is with respect to making forged signature in order to grab public money and law is every clear that any charge has to be proved by oral evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued on merit, however, he reiterated that the impugned order should be quashed on the sole ground that the same suffers from procedural irregularities. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents tries to impress this Court by going through the allegations made in the charge-sheet and further submits that even a criminal case has been lodged against the delinquent, who is the husband of the petitioner herein. He further submitted that since there was no likelihood of early conclusion of criminal proceeding; as such, the department proceeded in the departmental proceeding and husband of the petitioner has been terminated for the offence levelled against him in the charge-sheet. However, learned counsel for the respondent-State could not demonstrate by any document that any oral witness was examined 2026:JHHC:19162 3 in order to prove the charges levelled against the husband of the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, from bare perusal of the charge-sheet it appears that an F.I.R. was lodged against the husband of the petitioner being Majhiaon P.S. Case No. 196/2012, for taking out money by putting forged signature and pursuant thereto, the charge-sheet was issued. However, from the entire records including the enquiry report, it is evidently clear that no oral witness was examined in order to prove the charge. 6. The contentions of the respondent that the petitioner had made forged signature and an FIR was also lodged, are non est in the eyes of law because in the departmental proceeding specially in such type of allegation where there is charge of defalcation of money and putting forged signature, the oral witness was must to be examined in order to prove the charge. 7. The said issue has been set at rest by the catena of decisions by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts that for proving any charge against any delinquent, oral evidence is required in order to prove the charge. [Ref: i) Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank1, ii) State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha2, iii) Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.3 ; iv) State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh4] 8. It is also worth mentioning that after the death of the delinquent, even the criminal case cannot attain its finality. 9. The argument of the respondent-State that the matter should be remanded in order to cure the procedural irregularities, is misconceived in the present factual scenario, inasmuch as, the 1 (2009) 2 SCC 570 2 (2010) 2 SCC 772 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891 2026:JHHC:19162 4 delinquent has expired in the year 2018 and the present petitioner is the widow of the delinquent employee; as such, now the case cannot even be remitted for correction of procedural error. 10. Having regard to the above, the impugned order contained in Memo No. 386 dated 3.6.2017 and order dated 5.3.2020, are hereby, quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to extend the entire consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 12. So far as the claim of petitioner for granting compassionate appointment to her son is concerned; the same is not tenable in view of the fact that the compassionate appointment is not a source of appointment but an exception, and the purpose and object of the scheme is to provide immediate succour to the family of an employee on his death, that may suddenly find itself in state of destitution and the whole object is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate appointment. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 30th June, 2026 Kunal/- Uploaded 07.07.2026