( 2026:JHHC:12369 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 4567 of 2023 ---- Moti Lal Manjhi, aged about 49 years, son of Late Churaman Manjhi, resident of New Colony Jubra Road, Korrah, P.O-Korrah, P.S.- Korrah, District- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O& P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3. Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, having office at Ranchi College Road, Ranchi University, Morabadi, P.O Ranchi University, P.S Lalpur, District-Ranchi 4. Superintendent Engineer-cum-Enquiry Officer, having office at Road Construction Department, Ranchi College Road, Ranchi University, Morabadi, P.O-Ranchi University, P.S Lalpur, District Ranchi .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate : Mr. Shivam A. Pathak, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Sweta Shukla, A.C to AAG-II --- 06/ Dated: 27.04.2026 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following relief(s):- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing/ setting aside the punishment order dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure-10) whereby, the petitioner has been inflicted with the major punishment of stoppage of five annual increment of the salary with cumulative effect and stoppage of promotion for next seven years; (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing and setting aside the appeal order dated 23.07.2020 as contained in Memo No.1719(S) (Annexure-12) passed by Respondent No.3 whereby, the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 23.03.2018 has been dismissed by the Respondent No.3; (iii) That the petitioner further prays that after quashing/ setting aside the punishment order 23.03.2018 and subsequent order passed in departmental appeal dated 23.07.2020, the respondents be directed to release the consequential benefits to the petitioner; ( 2026:JHHC:12369 ) 2 (iv) For issuance of such other writ, order or direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner. 3. The facts relating to the disciplinary proceedings are mentioned in the pleadings and in order to decide the list, the facts are not reiterated what has been stated in the pleadings 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner amongst other grounds submits that no oral evidence has been led in this case in order to prove the charge. He further draws the attention of this Court towards the chargesheet which is at Annexure-4/1 and submits that even in chargesheet there is no reference of any oral evidence. 5. Accordingly, he submits that in view of the settled proposition that no charge can be proved in absence of an oral evidence, the impugned order of punishment be quashed and set aside with consequential benefits. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents though could not dispute the fact that oral evidence was not led in the departmental proceedings but submits that in the criminal case which was practically on the same issue, there was examination and cross-examination of the witnesses. However, the said criminal case is still pending. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that no oral witness has been examined and after going through the charge-sheet, it appears that the documents which was required to be proved and exhibited was not kept in the office in ordinary course of the business and it required to be exhibited in departmental proceeding, the impugned order required interference. ( 2026:JHHC:12369 ) 3 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the catena of judgments right from the celebrated judgment of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank1, and then in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha2 has dealt the role of Inquiry Officer and importance of oral evidence. 9. Recently, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh3 and also in the case of Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director U.P Cooperative Federation, Ltd.4, the same issue has been re-deliberated. 10. In the case of Ram Prakash Singh (supra) there is an observation in para 16 of the judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court that despite the admonition in the judgment of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra), still the departments are committing the same mistake. For brevity the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereinbelow: “13. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, it was held that an officer conducting an enquiry has a duty to arrive at findings in respect of the charges upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. It has also been held therein that any evidence collected during investigation by an investigating officer against the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceedings. 14. What follows from a conjoint reading of the above two decisions is and what applies here is that, ‘materials brought on record by the parties' (to which consideration in the enquiry ought to be confined) mean only such materials can be considered which are brought on record in a manner known to law. Such materials can then be considered legal evidence, which can be acted upon. Though the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not strictly applicable to departmental enquiries, which are not judicial proceedings, nevertheless, the principles flowing therefrom can be applied in specific cases. Evidence tendered by witnesses must be recorded in the presence of the delinquent employee, he should be given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and no document should be relied on by the prosecution without giving copy thereof to the delinquent - all these basic principles of fair play have their root in such Act. In such light, the documents referred to in the list of documents forming part of the annexures to the chargesheet, on which the department seeks to rely in the enquiry, cannot be treated as legal evidence worthy of forming the basis for a finding of guilt if the contents of such documents are not spoken to by persons competent to speak about them. A document does not prove itself. In the enquiry, therefore, the contents of the relied-on 1 (2009)2 SCC 570 2 (2010)2 SCC 772 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891 4 2026 SCC OnLine SC 505 ( 2026:JHHC:12369 ) 4 documents have to be proved by examining a witness having knowledge of the contents of such document and who can depose as regards its authenticity. In the present case, no such exercise was undertaken by producing any witness. 15. We may further refer to the decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha17 where disciplinary proceedings were drawn up against the respondent, Saroj Kumar Sinha, under the 1999 Rules itself with which we are concerned. Paragraphs 26 to 30 and 33 of the said decision being relevant are quoted below: “26. The first inquiry report is vitiated also on the ground that the inquiry officers failed to fix any date for the appearance of the respondent to answer the charges. Rule 7(x) clearly provides as under: ‘7. (x) Where the charged government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding in spite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the inquiry officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the inquiry officer shall record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged government servant.’ 27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. 28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of ( 2026:JHHC:12369 ) 5 rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service. *** 33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent has been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he has been condemned unheard as the inquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a single witness has been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. The High Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the entire proceedings are vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the charge-sheet.” (emphasis ours) 16. It appears that the appellant is yet to take lessons despite the admonition in Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra). The same kind of omissions and commissions that led to setting aside of the order of punishment imposed being upheld by this Court were repeated in the present case.” (emphasis supplied) 11. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure-10) and 23.07.2020 (Annexure-12), are hereby quashed and set aside. 12. The matter is remitted to the concerned authority to continue inquiry from the stage of examination of witness and proceed in accordance with law. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion the instant application stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Abha/- Dated: 27.04.2026