2026:JHHC:25476-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 9996 of 2025 In L.P.A. No. 626 of 2025 ------- 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. ......Respondent No.1 to 3/Appellants Versus 1. Awadhesh Kumar Sinha, son of Late Aklu Singh, resident of Sirhiya Ghat Mohalla, Durga Shankar Road, P.O. Chowk, P.S. Kotwali, District Gaya (Bihar). .....Petitioner/Respondent 2. Shri Shekhar Kumar Verma, father's name not known to the petitioner, Jharkhand Administrative Service, Departmental Enquiry Officer, T.A. Division Building, near Gol Chakkar, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. ....Respondent No.4/Proforma Respondent ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to AAG-III For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate ------- 03/ Dated: 24.08.2026 1. Heard Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to AAG-III for the applicants/appellants and Mr Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. I.A. No. 9996 of 2025 seeks condonation of delay of 119 days in instituting this appeal. In the peculiar facts of the present case and by accepting the cause shown as sufficient, we condone this delay and dispose of the I.A. No.9996 of 2025. 2026:JHHC:25476-DB 2 L.P.A. No. 626 of 2025 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up the appeal for consideration. 4. Mr Sahbaj Akhtar submits that the penalty was imposed after holding an enquiry and relying upon documents. He submitted that the scope for interference with such penalties is minimal and, therefore, the learned Single Judge should not have allowed W.P.(S) No.669 of 2016 vide the impugned order dated 24.02.2025. 5. Mr A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that only some internal or preliminary enquiry was held and, based thereon, a penalty of 5% deduction in the pension amount for a period of 5 years has been imposed. He submitted that no oral evidence was laid and the impugned order is in breach of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyendra Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh1, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others2, and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Another3. 6. We have considered the record and the impugned judgment and order dated 24.02.2025, and we see no reason to interfere with the same. A penalty has been imposed upon the 1 2024 INSC 873 2 (2009) 2 SCC 570 3 (2013) 4 SCC 301 2026:JHHC:25476-DB 3 respondent herein based only on some internal enquiries which, at the highest, could be regarded as some preliminary enquiries. In the regular enquiry proceedings which were commenced, only the preliminary enquiry report was produced, but no witnesses were examined. Even the documents that were allegedly referred to in the internal enquiry report were not exhibited or otherwise proved. 7. Mr Sahbaj Akhtar submits that during the pendency of the regular enquiry, the respondent retired and, therefore, the proceedings were converted to those under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. Apart from the fact that there is no clear material in support of this, even assuming this to be so, the necessity of a proper enquiry cannot be undermined. 8. The procedure followed by the appellants in the present case breaches the three decisions relied upon by Mr A.K. Sahani. Based only upon such preliminary enquiry report, there is no question of imposing any penalties. 9. The learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the penalty order dated 30.10.2015 and issuing consequential directions. There is no error in the impugned order, and consequently, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 2026:JHHC:25476-DB 4 10. If the directions for payment of consequential benefits have not been complied with to date, they should be complied with within 2 weeks from today. 11. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, shall be personally responsible for the implementation of the Court orders. If the payments are not made to the respondent herein within two weeks from today, interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the amount became due till the date of actual payment will have to be paid to the respondent. The State Government should not be burdened with payment of this amount, and the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, will have to pay it from his salary. Mr Akthar has agreed to immediately communicate a copy of this order to all concerned. 12. The compliance report must be filed in this Court by 30th of September, 2026 by serving an advance copy to the learned counsel for the respondent. 13. List the matter on 5th of October, 2026 for orders and reporting of compliance. 14. The appeal is dismissed with the above consequential directions. No cost. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) AUGUST 24, 2026 Amardeep/vikas Uploaded on 1.9.2026