2026:JHHC:11512 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5029 of 2025 --------- Udaynath Oraon, aged about – 65 years, Son of –Late Goyanda Uraon, Resident of – Vill- Balrampur, P.O.-Narkopi, P.S.-Gumla, District-Gumla, (Jharkhand). ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. The Director, Department of Welfare, Government of Jharkhand having its office at-Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Director, Department of Welfare, Government of Jharkhand having its office at-Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardagga, P.O. and P.S.- Lohardagga, District-Lohardagga. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Lohardagga, P.O. and P.S.-Lohardagga, District-Lohardagga. 6. The District Welfare Officer, Lohardagga, P.O. and P.S.- Lohardagga, District-Lohardagga, Jharkhand. 7. The Project Director, Integrated Tribal Development Corporation, Lohardagga, P.O. and P.S.-Basia, District-Gumla, Jharkhand. ....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P.-III --------- 07/Dated:-20.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) particularly a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 2281, dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure-8) whereby and where under the respondent authorities have inflicted punishment of stoppage of three annual increment with cumulative effects, and secondly the petitioner shall not be entitled to any amount, other than subsistence allowance, for the period during which the he was put under suspension. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) particularly a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the entire departmental proceeding including enquiry report, second show cause notice (Annexure-6 & Annexure-6/1), particularly for the reason that the same is completely vitiated in law and unsubstantiated by any 2026:JHHC:11512 2 cogent & convincing material, an irrational approach given directly in contravention to the specific finding given by the District Welfare officer i.e. the presenting officer, concluded after appreciating the reply furnished by the petitioner against the alleged charges, in its true perspective, explicitly observing inter-alia that the petitioner cannot be held guilty or any of the charges as alleged, thus the instant case is a case of no evidence, as such the entire departmental proceeding including illogical conclusion of the enquiry officer, being obstinate, adamant & perverse is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) particularly a writ in nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents, that consequent upon quashing of the aforesaid memo of punishment dated 05.07.2018, the respondents be directed to immediately and forthwith to recompute/revise/refix and make payment of the entire post retiral dues, inclusive of three annual increments, further, payment of difference of arrears of salary paid less due to aforesaid deduction of three increments: further to make payment of full salary for the period of suspension, withheld illegally and arbitrarily, on account of infliction of the aforesaid illegal punishment, and accordingly to make fixation of final pension in the current revised pay scale, and to pay all arrears along with interest @ 18% per annum and appropriate cost of litigation, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the peculiar fact of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put forth his two limbs of argument i.e.; I. Firstly, with regard to payment of full salary during the period of suspension as there is no notice issued under Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code. II. Secondly, that no oral evidence has been adduced during the departmental proceeding. 4. The fact of the case reveals that by virtue of the order of punishment dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure-8), two punishments were imposed. Firstly, three increments were stopped with cumulative effect and secondly, the petitioner is to be given only subsistence allowance during the entire period of suspension. 5. As a matter of fact, as per the settled proposition of law, while giving punishment under Rule 97 of the Code, the competent authority is duty bound to give second show cause notice. Admittedly, in this case, no notice, whatsoever, with regard 2026:JHHC:11512 3 to non-payment of full salary/only subsistence allowance has been issued to the petitioner under Rule 97 and since Rule 97 mandates issuance of notice before taking any decision; on this score alone, this grievance of the petitioner is allowed. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of the Basishtha Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 605, wherein the Patna High Court has held that before denying a delinquent employee the benefit of full salary and allowance, a second show cause notice is required to be issued under the provisions of Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code. This settled proposition of law has not been disputed by the State counsel before this Court. 6. By going through the Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, it transpires that it is a second show cause notice given before imposing punishment, but it is not a notice given under Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code. 7. Further, so far as the contention of the petitioner that no oral evidence has been adduced during the departmental proceeding which is also evident from the perusal of the enquiry report is concerned, 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 1 (2009) 2 SCC 570 2 (2010) 2 SCC 772 2026:JHHC:11512 4 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). 8. Having regard to the admitted facts that since neither Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code has not been complied nor any oral evidence has been adduced in the departmental proceeding and in view of the several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred to above; the impugned order dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure-8) along with the second show cause notice dated 06.06.2018 (Annexures-6) and the inquiry report dated 18.04.2018 (Annexure-6/1), are hereby, quashed and set aside. 9. It is pertinent to observe here that normally, in the case of procedural irregularity, the matter is remitted to the concerned authorities to cure the procedural irregularity but, in the case at hand, the petitioner is a retired employee and more than 66 years old; as such, this Court feels that remitting the case for this issue will further harass the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend all consequential benefits by 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 4 2026 SCC OnLine SC 505 5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891 2026:JHHC:11512 5 calculating the financial benefits including the full salary during the entire period of suspension and pay the same to the petitioner after deducting the amount what has already been paid to him and also do necessary work with regard to re-fixation of pension if necessary. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) APRIL 20, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 06.05.2026