2026:JHHC:1978 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4336 of 2022 ------ Yogendra Baraik, aged about 58 years, son of Late Jainath Barik, Resident of At & PO, Karra, PS-Karra, District-Khunti, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, At -Project Building, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, State of Jharkhand, AT -Nepal House, PO & PS-Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, State of Jharkhand, AT -Nepal House, PO & PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Under Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, State of Jharkhand, AT -Nepal House, PO & PS-Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III ------ 13/ 27th January, 2026 1. Heard, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner, in this writ petition prays for quashing of the order of punishment contained in Memo No.163 dated 03.12.2011 whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of withholding three annual increments with non- cumulative effect. Further for a direction upon the respondents to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner which has been kept pending without any rhyme or reasons. Further a direction upon the respondents to make payment of full salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension, i.e, from 12.09.2008 to 25.09.2008, as the petitioner has been acquitted in all the criminal cases lodged against him and as such he is entitled for full salary for the period of suspension. 2026:JHHC:1978 2 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been appointed in the year 1988 on the post of Mines Inspector. While the petitioner was posted as In Charge Assistant Mining Officer, Pakur, he was taken in custody in connection with a criminal case and was suspended from duty on 14.10.2008 in light of provisions contained in Rule 99 of the Jharkhand Service Code. After his release on bail, the petitioner was allowed to join on 27.09.2008 and he was allowed to work on his post. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him and a charge memo containing three allegations was issued to him. During the proceeding, after the submission of enquiry report second Show cause was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner replied vide letter no. 577 dated 13.12.2010. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter imposed a minor punishment of withholding three increments without any non-cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal, but no decision has yet been taken by the Appellate Authority. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no witnesses were examined, nor was any proper opportunity of hearing was given. A second show-cause notice was issued without assigning any reason for disagreeing with the enquiry report. He further submits that ignoring the petitioner’s reply, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a minor punishment of withholding three increments through a non- speaking and arbitrary order. He also submits that the petitioner was acquitted in all criminal cases after trial and is therefore entitled to salary for the suspension period. He further submits that the punishment imposed was without reasons and reflects non-application of mind and is unsustainable in law. Such action of the respondents is impermissible under the settled principles of law. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner failed to give any satisfactory explanation to the Second Show Cause and also did not take any action against the persons involved, which amounts to dereliction of duty. Therefore, the reply was found 2026:JHHC:1978 3 unsatisfactory, and punishment was imposed accordingly. He further submits that after due consideration of all materials on record, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a minor punishment of withholding three increments with non-cumulative effect. The punishment order was passed in accordance with law and does not suffer from any illegality or procedural irregularity. 6. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that no witnesses were examined by the management to prove the charges against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding. Documents without being proved through competent witnesses, cannot be treated as legal evidence. In a Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function. There has to be evidence either oral or documentary or both to prove the charge. Merely tendering of document is not sufficient to accept the same in evidence. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank”, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 held that in the departmental proceeding, the charges have to be proved by leading evidence. Even if the case is based on the documentary evidence, there must be some oral evidence to prove the documents and the contents thereof. Without any proof, the delinquent employee cannot be punished. In this case it was further held that mere production or documents is not enough, the contents of the evidence has to be proved as a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding and the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function. It is necessary to quote Paragraph 14 of the said Judgment which is hereunder:- 14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did 2026:JHHC:1978 4 not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 8. This judgment of Roop Singh Negi has been relied upon and followed extensively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow VS Ram Prakash Singh” reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891. 9. I find that in this case admittedly no witness was examined. Further, only on the basis of the statement and submission made by the Presenting Officer, the petitioner has been punished. Thus, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. 10. The order of punishment dated 03.12.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. The writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to disburse the consequential relief to the petitioner i.e., the annual increments which has been withheld. 12. Pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 27.01.2026 S.K.D., cp2 Uploaded on 31.01.2026