2026:JHHC:18844 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3660 of 2019 --------- Md. Shamimullah Shah, aged about 49 years Son of Late Naim Shah, resident of village, P.O. & P.S. Dildar Nagar, District- Gazipur, Uttar Pradesh. ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Chief Secretary, Home Department. Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 3. I.G. Prison, Govt. of Jharkhand Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 4. Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Saraikella, P.O. & P.S. Saraikella, District Kharsawan ....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to AAG-III --------- 08/Dated:-29.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 03.05.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent (Annexure-6); whereby the departmental appeal which was filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal from service with effect from 02.08.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent has been affirmed. 3. The brief facts of the case as it appears from the writ application are that on 11.01.2016, a charge-sheet has been served to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding and on 17.05.2016, an enquiry report has been submitted holding the petitioner guilty. The petitioner gave a reply on 11.06.2016 to the second show cause and thereafter, the dismissal order dated 02.08.2016 has been passed finding the explanation 2026:JHHC:18844 2 unsatisfactory. Thereafter, on 10.01.2019, the order has been passed in W.P.(S) No.1491/2018 directing the appellate authority to consider the departmental appeal. Thereafter, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on 03.05.2019. 4. Amongst other grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no oral witness has been examined in this case in order to prove the charge and even admitting the guilt to be true, the punishment is not commensurate with the charge alleged against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that principle of natural justice was duly followed and no interference is required in the matter of such charge of allowing a third person to enter inside the jail. 6. On 27.03.2025, this Court passed the following order: “1. Learned counsel for the respondents are directed to produce the files of the departmental inquiry, as it is not clear from the inquiry report as to whether any evidence was led to prove the charge levelled against the petitioner. 2. Let this case be listed after two weeks.” 7. Today, Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel representing the respondents placed the original record before this Court. 8. After perusing the same, it is evident that in order to prove the charge, no witness was examined. Though at page-33, there is a reference of internal inquiry, but that cannot be considered as a witness because that inquiry was pre-charge inquiry, and admittedly, no witness was examined in this case on behalf of the department in order to prove the charge. 9. Now, the law is no more res integra that in order to 2026:JHHC:18844 3 prove the charge/document, oral witness is necessary. This issue has already been settled by several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank1 followed by State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha2 and then in the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another3 deciding the same principle that any charge is to be proved by oral evidence. Also, in the case of Jai Prakash Saini vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd.4 the same issue has been deliberated. Recently also, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Pachayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh5 the same issue has been re-deliberated (refer para 13 to 16). 10. In the instant case also, since no witness has been examined; as such, on this score alone, the impugned order requires interference. 11. One other aspect of the matter is that, by going through the charge, it appears that the punishment of dismissal is highly excessive and is not commensurate with the charge; accordingly, interest of justice would be sufficed that the impugned order of termination and appellate order be quashed and the matter be remitted to the disciplinary authority to start the proceeding from the stage of inquiry. 1 (2009) 2 SCC 570 2 (2010) 2 SCC 772 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 4 2026 SCC OnLine SC 505 5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891 2026:JHHC:18844 4 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.08.2016 and the appellate order dated 03.05.2019, are hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority- respondent No.3, who shall start the proceeding from the stage of inquiry after calling witness to prove the charge and giving opportunity to the delinquent to cross-examine the witness and after following principles of natural justice, pass an appropriate order. 13. However, this Court feels it necessary to once again observe that the punishment which was imposed and which is quashed on the ground of procedural irregularity, is also of the nature that the same is not commensurate with the charge; therefore, while passing the fresh order of punishment, if any, the same may be kept in mind. 14. Consequently, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) JUNE 29, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 07/07/2026