2026:JHHC:18120
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1989 of 2026
….…..
Kumar Satyam Bhardwaj, aged about 59 years, son of Shri Jai Karan Sinha, resident of Kathi Tand, P.O. and P.S. Ratu, District-Ranchi. ..… Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. The Joint Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Special Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. .....Respondents
….…..
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….…..
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. For the Resp.-State : Md. Shahabuddin, S.C-VII Md. Zaid Imam, A.C. to S.C.-VII
CAV ON: 15/06 /2026 PRONOUNCED ON:22/06/ 2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has moved before this Court challenging the order dated 24.2.2026 passed under Rule-18(6) of the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal), Rules, 2016, whereby the petitioner has been imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement under Rule-14(9) of the 2016 Rules and only 2/3rdpension has been allowed to the petitioner.
The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of
1
2
the entire departmental proceeding and for consequential benefits with back wages and continuity in service. Factual Matrix
3. The petitioner was been appointed as a Revenue Karmchari on 15.6.1990 and in the Gradation List of the Revenue Karmchari for grant of promotion to the higher post of Circle Inspector, the name of the petitioner did not figure at appropriate place and ranking, whereafter the petitioner had submitted his objection by way of representation.
4. A Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was convened on 25.1.2019; however, the name of the petitioner was not considered and several persons ranking junior to the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Circle Inspector-cum-Kanungo and therefore the petitioner had moved before this Court by filing a writ petition bearing no. W.P.(S) No. 978/2019 for restoring his seniority and for granting him promotion. The respondent authority had realized their mistake in relation to the seniority position of the petitioner and thereby vide office order dated 12.3.2019 (Annexure-5), had placed the petitioner at Sr. No. 907A of the Gradation List and thereby had promoted the petitioner to the post of Circle Inspector-cum-Kanungo in
3
the pay scale of Rs. 35,400/- vide office order dated
26.7.2019.
5. Since, the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed, inasmuch as, though he had been placed at Sr. No. 907A, but juniors to the petitioner at Sr. No. 910, 914, 916, 917, 921, 926, 928, 930, 931 and 933 had been promoted to the post of Circle Inspector w.e.f. 29.1.2019 and the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Circle Inspector w.e.f. 26.7.2019 and hence, with a prayer to shift the date of promotion of the petitioner, he had again moved before the Court vide W.P.(S) No. 964/2020.
6. Instead of considering the restored seniority of the petitioner at Sl. No. 907A of the Gradation List and thereby shifting the date of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Circle Inspector to the date the juniors had been promoted, the respondents further promoted juniors to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer vide notification contained in Memo No. 1040 dated 30.3.2024.
In the list of promoted Assistant Settlement Officers, the name of one Om Prakash Prasad had figured at Sl. No. 57, who had been at Sl. No. 909 of the seniority position of Revenue Karmchari; meaning thereby that the
4
petitioner had been superseded by junior due to the delay and fault on the part of the respondent authorities.
7. The pending writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 964/2020 was disposed of on 25.4.2024 with a direction upon the respondent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Settlement Officer-cum-Circle Officer and when no order was passed, the petitioner was compelled to prefer Cont. Case (Civil) No. 758/2024 on 22.8.2024. After filing of the contempt application for non- compliance of the order dated 25.4.2024, a departmental proceeding was contemplated against the petitioner vide order contained in Memo No. 3015 dated 13.9.2024 for the charge that the petitioner being the Circle Inspector at Balumath has manipulated Register-II in relation to C.S Jamabandi.
It has also been imputed that the Demand Register, which is under the custody of Revenue Sub Inspector, had been called upon by the petitioner and manipulated. The charge no. 3 had been in relation to manipulation in the Issue Register.
8. The memo of charge contained the list of documents and witness and at Annexure-4, Manoj Beck, the Revenue Sub Inspector was cited as witness.
5
The Inquiry officer did not examine any witness, even the cited witness of the memo of charge to prove the charges which had been in relation to manipulation in the Revenue Register has not been examined. Finally, the petitioner has been imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with pension being confined to 2/3rdof original pension, hence this application
Contention of the Petitioner
9. It has been argued by Mr. Rahul Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that not only that the cited witness had not been examined but even the defence, which had been in the nature of audio and video clips regarding the presence of the Revenue Karmchari-Manoj Beck at the time of inspection, had not been considered by the Inquiry officer and hence, there had been no evidence as against the petitioner to prove any of the charges.
It has further been argued that in absence of the examination of the custodian of the Register-II (document), the Charge No. 1 and Charge No. 2 could not have been proved; however, the same has been held to be proved by the Inquiry officer while considering irrelevant materials and discarding relevant materials.
6
10. It has also been argued that the petitioner had also prayed for calling of the said cited witness; however, the same has been not allowed and without any basis and evidence, the enquiry report had been submitted holding the charges as proved.
Even in the reply to the 2ndshow cause notice served upon the petitioner, the petitioner had annexed the audio/video clippings of conversations with the custodian of the documents namely Manoj Beck, the cited witness, demonstrating that the Register-II has been examined in his presence and thereby prayed for allowing him to examine the cited witness.
It has been submitted that the petitioner had also filed an interlocutory application in the pending writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3927/2025, which has been filed challenging the order of the respondent Secretary dated 29.4.2025 by which the promotion of the petitioner has been denied on the ground of pendency of departmental proceeding; for allowing him to examine the cited witness and the writ petition was posted for hearing on 26.2.2026 and on 24.2.2026 itself; the order of punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner under Rule-14(xix) of the the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal), Rules, 2016 has
7
been passed.
11. Learned Counsel contended that there had been no evidence as against the petitioner for even establishing the guilty, what to say of being proved and as a measure of victimization, for moving before this Court, the petitioner has been imposed the penalty in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and procedural irregularity.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had further argued that there had been no complaint of any raiyat regarding any manipulation in the revenue record by the petitioner and without any evidence, on groundless and baseless charges, the petitioner has been imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with pension being confined to 2/3rdof original pension, which is very shocking.
13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgements rendered in the case of Rup Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and the case of Satendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3325 and the case of State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Vs. Ram Prakash Singh, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 891, to buttress his argument
8
that without examination of oral witness, the documents and the charges cannot be proved.
14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgement in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Prakash Kumar Tandan, reported in (2009)
2 SCC 541 to buttress his argument that an Inquiry officer is a quasi-judicial authority and although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial but there has to be consideration of relevant facts and the Inquiry officer cannot shift the burden of proof.
15. Mr. Kumar further referred the judgement in the case of President, Nagar Panchayat, Umari vs. Shyam Charan Chaturvedi, reported in (2023) 18 SCC 311 to buttress his argument that in absence of examination of the custodian of the records, the unsubstantiated finding of Inquiry officer based on no material is unsustainable. Argument of the Respondent State
16. Mr. Shahabuddin, Ld. Counsel representing the Respondents submits that till date no instruction has been received. He further tried to justify the impugned order and submits that proper enquiry has been conducted and the petitioner was given ample opportunity and only then the impugned order has been
9
passed, which requires no interference.
17. However, he could not dispute the fact on record by going through enquiry report that even there was a witness named in the list of witness namely Manoj Beck- the Revenue Sub Inspector, who is actually the custodian of the Register-II; has also not been examined. He further could not dispute the fact that the petitioner's request for defense witness was not acceded.
Analysis
18. Although there had been a direction by this Court vide order dated 30.3.2026 and again vide order dated 9.6.2026 to file counter affidavit; however, for the reasons best known to the respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed and this Court has been compelled to proceed on the basis of the materials available on record to scrutinise the impugned order of punishment dated 24.2.2026, inasmuch as, it is a settled proposition of law that reasons cannot be supplemented or supplanted as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405.
19. In this context it is established that an administrative order must stand or fall on the reasons expressly stated in the same and upon assessment of the
10
order of punishment of compulsory retirement dated 24.2.2026 it is evident that the charges imputed against the petitioner in relation to manipulation has been proved without any evidence.
20. Even the beneficiary of the transaction, the raiyats or the custodian of the Demand Register had not been examined during the course of enquiry or even there is consideration of the defence of the petitioner as well as his prayer to examine the cited witness, who had been the custodian of the records.
21. There is no subjective satisfaction recorded as to how the charges no. 1 and 2, which are related to manipulation in the records, has been proved without any complaint of the raiyat or even examining the custodian of the records. Any charge cannot be proved on mere probability discarding the evidences on record to rebut the same. The defence of the petitioner is based on relevant evidences cannot be discarded and ignored and the mentioning of the word "consideration with respect to the defence" is without any significance with respect to formation of an opinion.
22. The judgement in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. vs. Jai Bhagwan, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 376, proceeds on the basis that in absence
11
of clear proof supporting the case, it is difficult to draw a finding and therefore, the order of the High Court holding the case to be of no evidence, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
23. In the instant case also, no evidence has been led to establish the charges levelled against the petitioner and the finding of the Inquiry officer is highly perverse. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon the Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rup Singh Negi (supra), Satendra Singh (supra), Ram Prakash Singh (supra). As a matter of fact, the law has been well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments including the above referred judgments that examination of witness in a condition precedent to prove the charges/documents against the delinquent employee. In fact, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. VS Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even in an ex- party enquiry, the documents have to be proved by oral witness and the documents cannot be deemed to be proved ipso facto.
Interestingly, in the instant case, though there was a named departmental witness, but he has also not been examined for the reasons best known to the respondents.
12
24. Further, in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Bishwanath Bhattacharya reported in (2022) 13 SCC 329, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it has been held that in case of no evidence, the High Court may interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
25. Another important facet of the case is initiation of the proceeding itself. This Court cannot ignore the timing of initiation of the departmental proceedings, inasmuch as, the present case is a case where vague charges in relation to manipulation of revenue record, not made by any complainant, has been framed at the point of time when the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer was under consideration and the Inquiry officer without resorting to fair and reasonable procedure by providing opportunity of natural justice to the petitioner had submitted the enquiry report, where the findings are based on irrelevant material while ignoring the relevant material brought by the petitioner in his defence and hence, perverse when tested on the touchstone of judicial scrutiny and appreciation by this Court.
26. In the aforesaid backdrop and the settled
13
proposition of law, the impugned order of punishment dated 24.2.2026, being based on no evidence, unacceptable procedural irregularity coupled with a case of awful victimization; and hence, is unsustainable in the eye of law and is fit to be interfered and set aside by this Court.
27. Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment dated 24.2.2026, is hereby, quashed and set aside. The Petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith, but in any case, not beyond a period of 2 weeks from today.
28. The Respondents are further directed to pass an appropriate order of entire consequential benefits including back-wages, promotion etc. within a further period of 6 weeks.
29. Consequently, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:22/06/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded on
22.06.2026