Departmental Proceedings Must Adhere To Governing Rules, Some Evidence Must Be Proved Against The Delinquent: Jharkhand High Court

While hearing a service law matter, the Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that departmental proceedings must adhere to established rules and some sort of evidence is required to be proved against the delinquent.

In doing so, the court further noted that the departmental enquiry report concerning the petitioner–who was accused of mismanagement of funds and dismissed from service, did not show how were the charges alleged against him were proved. The court further noted that not a single witness had been examined. 

A single judge bench of Justice S.N. Pathak presiding over the case, underscored, "It is true that in a matter of departmental proceeding under the service law, the interference by a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited. But it is equally true that even in a matter of departmental proceeding, some sort of evidence is required to be proved against the delinquent and proceeding has to be conducted in accordance with rules whereby departmental proceeding is governed."

The above ruling came in response to two writ petitions where the petitioner sought pensionary benefits and challenged his termination from service.

The petitioner, a former Block Education Extension Officer, faced allegations of mismanagement of funds, including the withdrawal of Rs. 4,36,000/- that was not distributed to schools, along with failing to account for this amount upon handing over his post. Additional complaints included short distribution of rice bags (35 instead of 40) and an ongoing criminal case. Due to these allegations, a departmental inquiry was conducted, ultimately leading to his dismissal.

The petitioner preferred departmental appeal there-against which came to be dismissed, and thereafter, he preferred a writ petition in the meantime, the petitioner had retired. 

The petitioner's counsel challenged the termination order, arguing that the departmental proceedings were legally flawed from the outset, as they were conducted under the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930, which had been repealed and replaced by the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016. He contended that initiating the proceeding under repealed rules demonstrated a lack of application of mind by the authority.

Pointing to the inquiry report, counsel argued that the inquiry officer declared the charges against the petitioner as proven without examining any witness to substantiate the allegations. He argued that mere document submission was insufficient to establish the charges unless a witness testified to the contents.

Citing Supreme Court rulings in Hardwari Lal vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., the counsel further maintained that, without witness examination, the charges could not be validated, and no punishment could be imposed on the petitioner.

In response, the respondent State's counsel maintained that the departmental proceedings were duly conducted, the inquiry officer had found the charges proven, and the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to submit a second show-cause reply. He added that the disciplinary authority's decision to impose punishment was upheld upon appeal, which was dismissed.

The Court underscored that removal from service falls under Major Penalty as per Rule 17, with Rule 17(3)(ii)(a) mandating that in any proposed enquiry against a Government servant, the disciplinary authority must outline the substance of imputations and list witnesses supporting each article of charge.

The Court observed, "In the present case, from perusal of the memo of charge, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it does not appear that this mandatory provision has been followed, as no list of witness is given thereunder. This Rules came into effect on 15.4.2016 and the charge was framed against the petitioner on 20.6.2016. The mandatory provisions, therefore, were violated in initiation of the proceeding against the petitioner."

"Moreover, though the aforesaid Rule 2016 was invoked on the date of initiation of departmental proceeding on 20.6.2016, the respondents initiated the proceeding mentioning Rules 49 and 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930 which stood repealed by the aforesaid Rules, 2016, in view of Rule 32 thereof, which is the repealed and saving clause. This shows complete non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority while initiating the departmental proceeding," the Court added.

Perusing through the enquiry report the high court observed, "From perusal of the enquiry report dated 20.5.2019, it appears that merely by quoting charges, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charges are proved. How the charges are proved has not at all been discussed in the enquiry report. Not a single witness is examined to prove the charge against the petitioner".  

The Court found that only documents were produced without witness examination, which did not suffice to prove the charges; proving the charges requires witnesses to substantiate the document contents.

Accepting the petitioner's arguments, the Court ruled in his favour, allowing the writ petitions and set aside the enquiry report as well as the appellate order. The court ruled as a result of the quashing the petitioner is entitled to get pensionary benefits.

"As such, the respondents are directed to extend the entire pensionary benefits to the petitioner with admissible statutory interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for back wages from the date of termination till the date of retirement, but the said period shall be calculated for the purpose of pensionary benefits," it added. 

Case Title: Jagdish Paswan vs State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 170

Click Here To Read Judgement