Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

2026:JHHC:9783

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 3837 of 2020

Manoj Kumar, aged about 47 years, S/o Sri Surendra Prasad, resident of: House No.5, New Area, Gandhi Nagar, P.O Hinoo & P.S: Doranda, Ranchi, State: Jharkhand. Town & Dist: Ranchi, State: Jharkhand

¶5

... … Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O.: Dhurwa, P.S.:-Jagannathpur, District :-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Department of Cooperation, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.:-Dhurwa, P.S.: Jagannathpur, District:-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶9

The Deputy Secretary, Department of Cooperation, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.: Dhurwa, P.S.: Jagannathpur, District: Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶10

... … Respondent(s)

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Harsh Chandra, AC to GP-IV

¶13

¶14

Order No. 07 /Dated: 6^th April 2026

¶15

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for

¶16

the following reliefs:

¶17

“1.(a) For issuance of a Writ(s)/Order(s) in the nature of Certiorari to quash/ cancel the order as contained in Memo No.1537 dated 15.06.2015 (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been awarded major punishment by fixing the petitioner's Pay at the lowest stage in the pay scale;

¶18

(b) For issuance of a Writ(s)/Order(s) in the nature of Certiorari to quash/cancel the order as contained in Memo No. 2255 dated 14.08.2015 whereby and whereunder the order as contained in Memo No. 1537 dated 15.06.2015 has been upheld by the appellate authority;

¶19

AND/OR

¶20

(c) For passing such other order/ orders, Writ/Writs as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case;

¶21

AND

¶22

(d) Pending final hearing of the instant Writ Petition. Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 15.06.2015 as contained in Memo No.

1

2026:JHHC:9783

1537.”

Briefly stated, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jamshedpur Circle, Jamshedpur-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Iron Slag Pickers Labourers Society Limited, Jamshedpur. He was served with charge-sheet in Form-A alleging therein that in spite of violation of the terms of the agreement, the petitioner renewed agreement with the allottee, namely, Rajesh Gupta on 16.06.2012. The petitioner in its reply dated 15.12.2014 denied all the charges. On 29.01.2015, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report and the petitioner was directed to show-cause against the proposed punishment. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show-cause notice on 26.03.2015. Thereafter the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment on the petitioner on 15.06.2015 by fixing his pay to the lowest stage in the pay-scale. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 14.08.2015 affirming the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-authority, the instant writ application has been filed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner amongst other grounds contends that no oral witness has been examined in this case. He further draws attention of the Court towards the charge-sheet and the enquiry report and submits that oral witness has not been examined in order to prove the charges against the delinquent and now it is a settled law that any document is to be proved by the oral evidence. He further relies on several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court including one recent judgment in “Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U. P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. and Others”¹ .

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents though supports the impugned order but could not point out that any oral witness had been examined in order to prove the charge / documentary evidence.

¶29

At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that the law in this

¶30

1 2026 SCC Online SC 505

¶31

2

¶32

2026:JHHC:9783

¶33

regard is well settled that any document has to be proved by oral evidence. As a matter of fact, an enquiry officer has to act as an umpire and not as a representative of the respondents.

¶34

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record; admittedly, in this case no oral witness has been examined in order to prove the document/charges levelled against the petitioner. The issue of examination of oral witness has been dealt repeatedly by the Hon’ble Apex Court right from the case of “ Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank”² and further reiterated in the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha³ . However, it has been seen in many cases that the authorities have not yet understood the importance of evidence of oral evidence.

¶35

Thereafter, again in the case of “Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another ”⁴ , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

¶36

“ 13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory. Reference in this regard may be held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank⁹ and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat.¹⁰

¶37

14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi, this Court held that mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof reads as under:—

¶38

“ 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 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.

¶39

2 (2009) 2 SCC 570

¶40

3 (2010) 2 SCC 772

¶41

4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325

¶42

3

¶43

2026:JHHC:9783

¶44

15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence . The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.

¶45

19. The judgment and decree passed against the respondent in Narinder Mohan Arya case [(2006) 4 SCC 713 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 840] had attained finality. In the said suit, the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same was held to have been based on no evidence. The appellant therein in the aforementioned situation filed a writ petition questioning the validity of the disciplinary proceeding, the same was dismissed. This Court held that when a crucial finding like forgery was arrived at on evidence which is non est in the eye of the law, the civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. This Court emphasised that a finding can be arrived at by the enquiry officer if there is some evidence on record. …”

¶46

(emphasis supplied)

¶47

15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence presented by the Department to find out whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha are as follows:—

¶48

“ 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.

¶49

4

¶50

2026:JHHC:9783

¶51

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.”

¶52

(emphasis supplied)

¶53

Recently, the same issue was raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Pachayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh”⁵ and the Hon’ble Apex Court after going through several previous judgments has reiterated the law as under:

¶54

“ 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.

¶55

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

¶56

5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891

¶57

5

¶58

2026:JHHC:9783

¶59

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 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.

¶60

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:

¶61

“ 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:

¶62

‘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.’

¶63

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.

¶64

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

¶65

6

¶66

2026:JHHC:9783

¶67

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.

¶68

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.

¶69

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 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.

¶70

__*

¶71

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.”

¶72

(emphasis supplied)

¶73

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.”

¶74

After going through the aforesaid judgments, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the oral witness is necessary to prove the documents and the charges levelled against the delinquent employee, which is absent in the instant case.

¶75

7

¶76

2026:JHHC:9783

¶77

Therefore, for the sole reason of non-examination of oral witness by the respondent-authority; the order as contained in Memo No. 1537 dated 15.06.2015 (Annexure-6) and the appellate order dated 14.08.2015 as contained in Memo No. 2255, are hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶78

Accordingly, the instant writ application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of.

¶79

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶80

6^th April 2026

¶81

Amit Uploaded on 21/04/2026

¶82

8

Manoj Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

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

Govind Ram Alias Ravi Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjeev Kumar Baraik Alias Sanju Kumar Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sri Badri Narayan Pandey Vs the Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway

Manju Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Shashi Ranjan Trivedi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of Agriculture

Binod Kumar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand