Sunil Kumar Sultania Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Road Construction Department

2025:JHHC:33109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 1542 of 2021

Sunil Kumar Sultania , aged about 60 years, son of Late Murli Manohar Sultania, resident of Flat No. F-201, Hari Om Tower, Circular Road, P.O. Ranchi G.P.O., P.S. Lalpur, District. Ranchi-834001. ……… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, PIN 834004.

¶7

Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, PIN 834004.

¶8

Under Secretary, Road Construction Department, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, PIN 834004. ……… Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Gadodia, Advocate Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate, Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate, Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II, Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P.-II

¶11

CAV on: 13.10.2025 Delivered on:03/11/2025

¶12

J U D G M E N T

¶13

1. The instant writ application has been filed by Writ Petitioner praying therein for following reliefs:-

¶14

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside Second Show Cause Notice, contained in Letter No. 309(S) dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure-12), wherein the Petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why major penalty of “reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay” be not imposed upon the Petitioner in exercise of the power under Rule 14 of the “Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016” (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.C.A. Rules’ for short), as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and being contrary to the provisions of C.C.A. Rules.

¶15

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, for quashing/setting aside Letter No. 433(S) dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure-

¶16

1

¶17

2025:JHHC:33109

¶18

13), being a reminder second Show Cause Notice issued to the Petitioner, directing the Petitioner to show cause as to why major penalty of “reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay” be not imposed upon the Petitioner in exercise of the power under Rule 14 of C.C.A. Rules.

¶19

(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Respondents not to arbitrarily discriminate the Petitioner in the matter of imposition of penalty with that of the similarly situated employee namely, Vinod Kumar, upon whom minor penalty of ‘Censure’ in respect of identical charges levelled against him, has been imposed.

¶20

(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside the Order, contained in Letter No. 1297(S) dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure-15), wherein the major penalty of “reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay” has been imposed upon the Petitioner in exercise of the power under Rule 14 of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016, as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and being contrary to the provisions of C.C.A. Rules.

¶21

(v) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶22

(vi)

¶23

2. The writ application was initially filed challenging Second Show Cause Notice including reminder Second Show Cause Notice, wherein Petitioner was asked to show cause as to why major penalty of “reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay” be not imposed upon Petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 14 of Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016). However, during pendency of the writ application final order imposing punishment, contained in Letter No.1297(S) dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure-15) was passed against Petitioner, wherein major penalty of “reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay” was imposed upon Petitioner under Rule 14 of C.C.A. Rules. Said order was challenged by filing an amendment application, which was allowed by this Court and, thereafter, a consolidated amended Writ Petition was filed.

¶24

3. Shorn of necessary details from the facts, it transpires that Petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 01.12.2014. While Petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer in

¶25

2

¶26

2025:JHHC:33109

¶27

Rural Development Department (Rural Works Affairs), Works Division, Bokaro, an inspection was carried out by the Secretary, Rural Development Department (Rural Works Affairs) on 10.02.2016 in Works Division, Bokaro and certain ongoing works pertaining to Chas and Chandankiyari Sub-divisions were inspected by the Secretary. Consequent upon such inspection, Petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 25.02.2016 by the Secretary, wherein it was alleged that Petitioner was negligent in performing his duties relating to supervision of road works including submission of incorrect proposal for administrative approval pertaining to sanction of road.

¶28

4. Exactly similar Show Cause Notices were issued to Assistant Engineer namely, Vinod Kumar and Junior Engineer, namely, Anil Kumar, vide Letter Nos. 1000 and 1001 both dated 23.02.2016 and exactly same set of allegations were levelled regarding negligence in carrying out supervision of road works in question.\

¶29

5. Petitioner denied the allegations and even Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer also denied the allegations levelled in the Show Cause Notice, by submitting their explanations and, thereafter, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer were put under suspension, but Petitioner was not suspended and was allowed to perform his duties. 6. However, vide Resolution contained in Memo No. 4735(S) WE dated 28.07.2016, departmental proceeding was initiated against Petitioner and charge-sheet was issued to him, wherein only charge levelled against Petitioner was ‘negligence in performing his duties pertaining to supervision of roads and submission of incorrect proposal for administrative approval for sanction of roads’.

¶30

7. Petitioner submitted his defence reply and, thereafter, departmental enquiry was initiated against Petitioner and an Enquiry Report was submitted by Enquiry Officer. After a lapse of about 20 months from the date of submission of Enquiry Report, a Second Show Cause Notice contained in Letter No. 1100(S)WE dated 21.02.2019 was issued to Petitioner asking the Petitioner to show cause as to why major penalty be not imposed upon Petitioner.

¶31

3

¶32

2025:JHHC:33109

¶33

8. Petitioner replied to Second Show Cause Notice denying the charges levelled against him on 12.04.2019.

¶34

9. Despite submission of reply, no order was communicated to Petitioner, but again another Second Show Cause Notice contained in Letter Nol. 4392(S) dated 04.09.2019 was issued to Petitioner, wherein Petitioner was show caused as to why penalty in terms of Rule 14 of C.C.A. Rules be not imposed upon him of ‘withholdment of two increments with cumulative effect’. Petitioner again submitted his reply to said Second Show Cause Notice, vide reply dated 20.02.2020, but again no order imposing penalty was communicated to Petitioner.

¶35

10. Thereafter a third Second Show Cause Notice contained in Letter No. 309(S) dated 29.01.2021 was issued to Petitioner asking him to show cause as to why major penalty of “reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay” be not imposed upon Petitioner.

¶36

11. Accordingly, Petitioner filed writ application challenging said de novo Second Show Cause Notice. However, during pendency of the writ application, an order dated 30.03.2021, contained in Memo No. 1297(S) was passed, wherein major penalty of “reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay” was imposed upon Petitioner, wherein pay of the Petitioner was reduced from Rs. 1,55,025/- to Rs. 99,900/- with effect from 30.03.2021. Petitioner superannuated from service on 31.03.2021.

¶37

12. Mr. Sumeet Kumar Gadodia, assisted by Mr. Mr. Prakhar Harit, while assailing de novo Second Show Cause Notice and order imposing penalty, primarily raised following grounds: -

¶38

(i) Issuance of de novo Second Show Cause Notice, wherein earlier penalty of ‘Withholdment of two increments with cumulative effect’ was substituted with penalty of “reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay”, is violative of C.C.A. Rules as Respondent-authorities cannot be permitted to issue one after another Second Show Cause Notices proposing different sets of penalties to be imposed upon Petitioner on the same set of charges.

¶39

4

¶40

2025:JHHC:33109

¶41

(ii) It was submitted that penalty imposed upon Petitioner is beyond the provisions of Rule 14 of ‘C.C.A. Rules’, as said Rule does not contemplate imposing of penalty of “reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay”.

¶42

(iii) It was further contended that exactly on the same set of charges, Show Cause Notices and departmental proceedings were initiated against Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer and said authorities were imposed only minor penalty of ‘Censure’, whereas in discriminatory and mala fide manner, Petitioner has been imposed a major penalty.

¶43

(iv) It was further argued that penalty imposed upon Petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and said penalty has been imposed just one day prior to retirement of Petitioner, actuated with malice in law and in a mala fide manner.

¶44

13. Per contra, Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P.-II defended the action of Respondent State of Jharkhand and raised following issues:-

¶45

(i) Petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring Appeal under Rule 24 of ‘C.C.A. Rules’ and, hence, writ petition may not be entertained due to availability of alternative remedy.

¶46

(ii) It was submitted that although Petitioner was earlier issued Show Cause Notice for imposition of penalty of only ‘withholdment of two increments with cumulative effect’, but a fresh Show Cause Notice was required to be issued to Petitioner, as he was to superannuate on 31.03.2021, and penalty earlier proposed would not have any impact upon Petitioner due to his retirement and under said circumstances, a fresh de novo Second Show Cause Notice was issued.

¶47

(iii) While admitting that Assistant Engineer, namely, Vinod Kumar, against whom on identical charges, departmental proceeding was initiated, was only imposed minor penalty of ‘Censure’; Petitioner’s case was sought to be distinguished by contending, inter alia, that Petitioner, being a superior officer, has

¶48

5

¶49

2025:JHHC:33109

¶50

more responsibility upon him to execute the work properly and Petitioner cannot escape from such responsibility by putting blame upon subordinates.

¶51

(iv) On the issue of disproportionate punishment, it was submitted that penalty imposed upon Petitioner is not shocking disproportionate to the charges levelled against Petitioner and, accordingly, it was submitted that this Court may not interfere with the order imposing penalty upon Petitioner.

¶52

F I N D I N G S

¶53

14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and, on perusal of relevant documents, it transpires that facts in the present case are not disputed which has been already narrated above.

¶54

15. Petitioner along with Assistant Engineer namely, Vinod Kumar and Junior Engineer, namely Anil Kumar were proceeded in departmental proceedings on identical set of charges regarding negligence in carrying out supervision work of roads including forwarding of incorrect proposals for administrative approval for sanction of roads.

¶55

16. It is an admitted fact that in respect of departmental proceeding initiated against Vinod Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Respondent-Road Construction Department, vide Notification dated 26.05.2017, closed the departmental proceeding by only imposing minor penalty of ‘Censure’ against him. Said fact is not denied in the Counter Affidavit, but it has only been stated that Petitioner, being superior officer, had more responsibility than his subordinates and, thus, the case of Petitioner cannot be equated with that of Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer. However, Petitioner, in his reply to Second Show Cause Notice, specifically brought to the notice of Respondent-authorities the provisions of P.W.D. Code, wherein responsibility of execution of work lies upon Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer and Petitioner was only a supervising authority. Petitioner also brought to the notice of Respondent-authorities that Petitioner was In-charge of entire works of Division, whereas it was the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer who were In-charge of works of Sub-

¶56

6

¶57

2025:JHHC:33109

¶58

Division, where works of construction of roads were being carried out, and said works were under direct supervision and control of the said authorities.

¶59

17. On the strength of above, Petitioner specifically pleaded that role of Petitioner, to the extent of supervision and forwarding of proposal for administrative approval of roads, was quite limited in nature and, Assistant Engineer was directly responsible for supervision of roads including preparation of estimates and, thus, Petitioner cannot be discriminated in the matter of imposition of penalty.

¶60

18. Said contention of Petitioner has not been even considered by Respondent-authorities and, merely, it has been stated that Petitioner, being superior officer, had more responsibility than that of his Juniors, and, thus, major penalty has been imposed upon Petitioner, which, in the opinion of the Court, is not sustainable in the eye of law. In this regard, reference may be made to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of ‘State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors Vs. Raj Pal Singh, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 783 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

¶61

3. The respondent assailed the legality of the order by approaching the Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal having refused to interfere, he approached the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the charges and the delinquency being same and identical, and all the employees having been served with a set of charges out of the same incident, there was no justifiable reason to pass different orders of punishment, and therefore, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. The High Court consequently set aside the order of dismissal and directed stoppage of five increments in case of the respondent as was the order in case of some other Assistant Warders. The High Court further directed that the delinquent respondent would be paid only 50% of back wages. It is this order of the High Court which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

¶62

4. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that once the charges have been held to be established, it was not appropriate for the High Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment and judged from this standpoint, the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Secy. to Govt., Home Deptt. v. Srivaikundathan.

¶63

5. Though, on principle the ratio in aforesaid cases would ordinarily apply, but in the case in hand, the High Court appears to have considered the nature of charges levelled against the five employees who stood charged on account of the incident that happened on the same day and then the High Court came to the conclusion that since the gravity of charges was the same, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to impose different punishments for different delinquents. The reasoning given by the High Court cannot be faulted with since the State is not able to indicate as to any difference in the delinquency of these employees.

¶64

6. It is undoubtedly open for the disciplinary authority to deal with the delinquency and once charges are established to award appropriate punishment. But when the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment, would be discriminatory. In this view of the matter,

¶65

7

¶66

2025:JHHC:33109

¶67

we see no infirmity with the impugned order requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

¶68

19. Said Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable in the case of Petitioner, as, on identical set of charges, order of imposition of punishment of ‘Censure’ has been passed against Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer, whereas Petitioner has been imposed major penalty, that too, one day prior to his retirement, which is clearly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶69

20. Apart from above, another aspect, which requires consideration by this Court is issuance of repeated Second Show Cause Notices to Petitioner proposing varied penalties upon Petitioner. Initially, a Second Show Cause Notice contained in Letter No. 1100(S)/WE dated 21.02.2019 (Annexure 8 series) was issued to Petitioner asking him to show cause as to why major penalty be not imposed; and Petitioner submitted his reply to said Second Show Cause Notice on 12.04.2019. Thereafter, no order was passed imposing penalty upon Petitioner and after about five months, another Second Show Cause Notice contained in Letter No. 4392(S) dated 04.09.2019 was issued to Petitioner directing him to show cause as to why penalty of ‘withholdment of two increments with cumulative effect’ be not imposed upon Petitioner. Petitioner again denied the charges and requested to drop the proceedings vide his reply dated 20.02.2020.

¶70

21. Thereafter, after a lapse of about one year, another de novo Second Show Cause Notice contained in Letter No. 309(S) dated 29.01.2021 was issued to Petitioner asking him to show cause as to why major penalty of “reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay” be not imposed upon him. Thus, from the records of the case, it transpires that departmental proceeding was initiated against Petitioner in the month of July, 2016; Enquiry Report was submitted in the month of November, 2016 and, thereafter, three separate Show Cause Notices were issued i.e. on 21.02.2019, 04.09.2019 and 29.01.2021. Justification for issuance of de novo Second Show Cause Notice (being third notice) is given in Para-15 of the Counter Affidavit, wherein it has been stated that since Petitioner was to superannuate from service on

¶71

8

¶72

2025:JHHC:33109

¶73

31.03.2021, impact of the proposed punishment of ‘withholdment of two increments with cumulative effect’ would not have reflected upon Petitioner and it is only because of the said reason, de novo Show Cause Notice dated 29.01.2021 was issued to Petitioner.

¶74

22. In the opinion of this Court, said ground taken by Respondents in their Counter Affidavit is patently arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As already stated above, Enquiry Report was submitted as far back as in November, 2016 and, thereafter, for almost five years, one after other Show Cause Notices were issued to Petitioner, but no penalty was imposed upon him. In fact, on 21.02.2019, Show Cause Notice was issued for imposition of penalty of ‘withholdment of two increments with cumulative effect’ and if order for said penalty would have been passed immediately thereafter, at best two increments of Petitioner would have been withheld at the time of his retirement and his pay would have been reduced by only two increments. However, Respondents chose not to pass any order on aforesaid Second Show Cause Notice, and, just one month prior to the date of retirement of Petitioner, a penalty was proposed of “reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay”, meaning thereby that all increments earned by Petitioner during his service career would be annulled and Petitioner would be dropped to the lowest scale of pay. Justification given for issuance of de novo Second Show Cause Notice that earlier Show Cause Notice would not have any impact upon Petitioner due to his retirement, is manifestly arbitrary and illegal, as Respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrongs. On one hand Respondents have not passed any order pursuant to issuance of Second Show Cause Notice, and on the other hand, are taking plea that since Petitioner was going to retire, a de novo penalty was proposed so that said penalty may have impact upon Petitioner. This is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶75

23. Yet another aspect which requires consideration by this Court is, as to whether penalty imposed upon Petitioner is in accordance with Rule 14 of C.C.A. Rules, 2016. Rule 14(7) and Rule 14(8) provide for imposition of penalty in following manners: -

¶76

9

¶77

2025:JHHC:33109

¶78

“14. Minor and Major Penalties. -- The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as herein after provided, be imposed on a Government Servant, namely—

¶79

Minor Penalties—

¶80

(i) xxx xxx xxx

¶81

(ii) xxx xxx xxx

¶82

Major Penalties-

¶83

xxx xxx xxx

¶84

(vii) Save as provided in clause (iii) reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the Government Servant will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay.

¶85

(viii) Reduction to lower time scale of pay, grade, post or Service for a period to be specified in the order of penalty, which shall be a bar to the promotion of the Government Servant during such specified period to the time scale of pay, grade, post or Service from which he was reduced, with direction as to whether or not, on promotion on the expiry of the said specified period—

¶86

(a) The period of reduction to time scale of pay, grade, post or services shall operate to postpone future increments of his pay, and if so, to what extent; and

¶87

(b) The Government Servant shall regain his seniority in the higher time scale of pay, grade, post or service.”

¶88

24. A bare perusal of aforesaid sub-rules (vii) and (viii) of Rule 14 would reveal that said clauses provide for “reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period”. In the impugned order, order of “reduction to a minimum stage in the time scale of pay” has been passed without specifying the period of the order of penalty. In fact, since Petitioner was going to superannuate on 31.03.2021and penalty order has been passed on 30.03.2021 without providing for specific period of such penalty, the penalty would operate in perpetuity against Petitioner and his entire retiral benefits including Pension, etc. would be effected in perpetuity, which is not permitted under Rule 14(vii) and 14(viii) of C.C.A. Rules.

¶89

10

¶90

2025:JHHC:33109

¶91

25. In the present case, salary of Petitioner due to imposition of penalty has been reduced from Rs. 1,55,025/- to Rs. 99,990/- i.e. more than 1/3^rd of the salary of Petitioner has been reduced just one day prior to his retirement. Such order imposing penalty is not countenanced under Rule 14(vii) & (viii) and, thus, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶92

26. In view of cumulative facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, order contained in Letter No. 1297(S) dated 30.03.2021, is hereby, quashed and set aside. Since Petitioner has already superannuated from service, Respondents are directed to recompute retiral benefits including Pension of Petitioner and to release differential arrear of Pension and retiral benefits to Petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶93

27. Further, Pension and post retiral benefits admissible to Petitioner would be computed on the basis of last pay drawn without taking into effect the penalty order dated 30.03.2021. It is made clear that in the event, differential arrears of retiral benefits and Pension is not paid to Petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated period, Petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on due and payable amount with effect from 01.04.2021 till the date of payment of such amount.

¶94

28. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Pending Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶95

(Deepak Roshan, J)

¶96

November 03, 2025

¶97

Amardeep/ AFR/ Uploaded

¶98

06/11/2025

¶99

11

Sunil Kumar Sultania v. the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Road Construction Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Sultania v. the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Road Construction Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Ram Krishna Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bharat Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Runjay Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, through Its Authorized Representative Pankaj Kumar, Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health

Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, through Its Authorized Representative Pankaj Kumar, Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health

Mahavir Das Vs Home Department