2026:JHHC:3159 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.1182 of 2022 ----- Ranjit Kumar, aged about 41 years, son of late Arun Kumar Pramanik, resident of Karay, P.O.-Lasuna, P.S.-Masuri, District- Patna, presently working as Clerk, in the Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Saraikela Kharsawan and residing at Saraikela, P.O.+P.S.-Saraikela, District-Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O.+P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 2. Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, P.O.+P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 3. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, P.O.+ P.S.- Chaibasa, District-Chaibasa; 4. Deputy Commissioner, Saraikela, P.O.+P.S.- Saraikela, District-Saraikela Kharsawan; 5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Saraikela, P.O.+P.S. Saraikela, District- Saraikela Kharsawan; 6. Block Development Officer, Nimdih, P.O.+P.S. Saraikela Kharsawan, Distict- Saraikela Kharsawan; … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III …...... 06 /05.02.2026: Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner by filing this writ petition has challenged the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Service Revision Case No. 04 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the revision petition filed by the State of Jharkhand, against the exoneration of the petitioner by the Appellate Authority, has been allowed and the punishment which was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was revived. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that Board of Revenue has got no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. He submits that the Appellate Authority after considering the appeal and the materials available arrived at a 2026:JHHC:3159 2 conclusion that the petitioner is innocent, thus exonerated him by allowing the departmental appeal, but the Board of Revenue without any jurisdiction entertained the revision filed by this petitioner. Any order passed by the Board of Revenue in service matter is without jurisdiction as there is no revisional power vested with the said Board. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that Board of Revenue is the superior authority than the Appellate Authority, thus in terms of Rule 3 of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, which is still in vogue in the State of Jharkhand, the Board of Revenue can pass an appropriate order, if an aggrieved party files revision. He submits that in this case irregularities have been committed by the petitioner by issuing caste certificates while he was in service. He used whitener and issued caste certificate to another person, with same serial number, as the petitioner had some grievance against the lawyer. The Disciplinary Authority found the allegations to be correct and punished the petitioner by imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect. As the Appellate Authority erroneously set-aside the same, the Board of Revenue corrected the same and revived the penalty. He lastly submits that the petitioner before the Revenue Board did not challenge its jurisdiction, thus now he be estopped from challenging the same. 5. From the materials on record, I find that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 18.12.2012. Thereafter the departmental proceeding continued and the petitioner was punished after conclusion of the inquiry, by order dated 07.03.2015. The quantum of punishment was stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred a statutory appeal before the Departmental Appellate Authority. The Departmental Appellate Authority, by order dated 17.07.2019 in Memo No. 968 of 2019 dated 24.07.2019 allowed the appeal by setting aside the punishment. Once the appeal was allowed, the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy 2026:JHHC:3159 3 Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan, who also is the Disciplinary Authority, approached the Board of Revenue by filing a revision application being Revision No. 4 of 2020. After hearing the parties, the Board of Revenue set-aside the appellate order and revived the order of punishment. 6. Admittedly the petitioner was punished in the departmental proceeding by the Disciplinary Authority with stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The appellate order is at Annexure-7. I have gone through the appellate order. The Appellate Authority after considering all the documents on record and after considering the submission of the parties held that since the petitioner was looking after the work of two departments he was overloaded, that is the reason there was delay in the work and he had no intention to commit any wrong to anyone thus, the punishment order was set-aside. 7. The proceeding against the petitioner was initiated in accordance with Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 and not under Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016, as the chargesheet has been filed before coming to force of the 2016 Rules. 8. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in the Revision by the Board of Revenue. The revision is a service revision. 9. Both the Appellate and Revisional jurisdiction are creature of statute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh” reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78 in paragraph 25 while dealing with the revisional and appellate power of the Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction and the appellate jurisdiction are creature of statute. No party to a proceeding has an inherent right of appeal or revision. It was held that the revision cannot be said to be continuation of suit or proceeding. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that if 2026:JHHC:3159 4 revisional jurisdiction is exercised against any order, the said power should be vested in the statute. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rami Manprasad Gordhandas and Others vs. Gopichand Shersing Gupta and Others” reported in (1973) 4 SCC 89. 10. Though both the cases arises of Rent Control Act but the principle which has been laid down is that if no revisional power has been bestowed upon an authority by any statute, the same cannot be exercised by any authority. 11. If any authority exercises the revisional power without the same being conferred upon him by the statute, it will be a misuse of the jurisdiction. The authority cannot acquire a jurisdiction which is not conferred upon it. Consequently any such order passed would be nullity in the eye of law. The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the root and the same cannot be cured. The order passed by the Court which does not have any jurisdiction is null and void ab initio. The plea of nullity and the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. In “Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) through LRS vs. Jasjit Singh and Others” reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph-18 has held as follows: “18. It. is settled law that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction on the subject matter or on the grounds on which the decree made which goes to the root of its jurisdiction or lacks inherent jurisdiction is a coram non judice. A decree passed by such a court is a nullity and is non est. Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the court to pass decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party………..” 12. Further in the case of “Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Others vs. Kashinath Janardhan and Another” reported in (1983) 3 SCC 437, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph-10 has held as follows: “10………..When a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction clutches at a jurisdiction by ignoring a statutory provision and its 2026:JHHC:3159 5 consequences in law on the status of parties or by a decision wholly unwarranted with regard to the jurisdictional fact, its decision is a nullity and can be set up in collateral proceeding………” 13. Thus, from the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that if a Court without having jurisdiction passes any order the same is null and void. 14. I have discussed decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court because it is the case of the petitioner that the Board of Revenue has got no jurisdiction to entertain service revision as neither the Rules of 1930 or 1935 have provided for filing any revision. The Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930 in Chapter-13, rule 56 provides for filing an appeal. In the entire Rules there is no provision of filing any revision. No power is vested upon any of the authorities either upon the higher authority who is higher in rank than the Appellate Authority to entertain any revision. The Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1935 also does not provide for filing any revision. A disciplinary proceedings as per the aforesaid Rules, comes to an end with filing of an appeal, and no further channel of revision is created. Thus, in absence of any power to file a revision in both the Rules, the Board of Revenue could not have acquired jurisdiction in an application filed by the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Seriakella-Kharshawan. This acquisition of jurisdiction is absolutely against the provision of law and is illegal. 15. Learned counsel for the State had referred to Rule 3 of Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules. Rule 3 of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules provides that a higher authority shall have all the powers of any lower authority. The higher authority may with or without appeal modify or reverse the order passed by the lower authority, in a matter primarily within competence of lower authority, unless by any law the order of the lower authority is declared final. Rule 3 of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules is quoted hereunder: 2026:JHHC:3159 6 “3. Relation of higher to lower authority.-A higher authority has all the powers of any lower authority and, further may, with or without appeal, modify or reverse any orders passed by a lower authority, in a matter primarily within the competence of the lower authority, unless, by any law, the order of the lower authority are final.” 16. The arrangement of the said Rule clearly provides that a power has been vested with the higher authority to do all the similar act which the lower authority can perform. Thus, by virtue of the said Rules no additional power is given to the higher authorities, rather the power which the higher authority has to exercise is the same power which the lower authority is supposed to exercise, as per the law. 17. Further, Rules 6 provides that Board of Revenue is the highest authority. In this case the higher authority which is admittedly the Board of Revenue has invoked an additional power of revision which is not there in the statute. If the Board of Revenue had passed any order in the appeal the matter would have been different and could have come within its jurisdiction in terms of Rule 3 of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules. Even to invoke jurisdiction in terms of Rule 3, the specific power has to be vested upon the lower authority, which the higher authority can exercise, but here admittedly neither the Rules of 1930 or 1935 had vested any power of revision to any of the authority, far less to any lower authority. Thus, the State cannot by any means take shelter of Rule 3 of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules. 18. Considering what has been discussed and held above, I hold that the Board of Revenue has got no statutory power or authority to entertain and decide a revision as revision is not provided in any of the service rules. 19. Thus, the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 08.10.2021 is wholly without jurisdiction and is nullity in the eye of law. The order dated 08.10.2021 passed in Service Revision Case No. 4 of 2020, is set-aside reviving the appellate order, which exonerates the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:3159 7 20. This writ petition stands allowed. 21. The financial benefit which was forfeited should be immediately released in favour of the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 05.02.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 AFR Uploaded on 09.02.2026