The Jharkhand High Court, while hearing a service law matter, reiterated that departmental proceedings must follow established rules and some form of evidence is required to be proven against the culprit.

In doing so, the court also noted that the departmental investigation report into the dismissed petitioner accused of mismanagement of funds did not show how the charges against him were proven. The court also noted that not a single witness was questioned.

single judge bench Justice SN Pathak It was underlined that he presided over the case, “It is true that in a matter of departmental proceedings under the service act, the intervention of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited. But it is equally true that even in a matter of departmental proceedings, evidence of some kind has to be proved against the culprit and the case is subject to departmental proceedings.” It must be carried out in accordance with its rules.”

The above decision came in response to two writ petitions in which the petitioner sought pension and challenged his dismissal from service.

The petitioner, a former Block Education Extension Officer, faced allegations of mismanagement of funds, including withdrawal of Rs. 4,36,000/- which was not distributed to schools and this amount was not accounted for while handing over the task. Additional complaints included the short distribution of bags of rice (35 instead of 40) and an ongoing criminal case. A department investigation was conducted due to these allegations and ultimately led to his dismissal.

The petitioner preferred the departmental appeal which was about to be dismissed and later preferred to file the writ petition when the petitioner 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the outset as they were conducted under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, which were repealed and replaced by the Jharkhand Government Servant Rules. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016. He submitted that initiating proceedings under the repealed rules showed that the competent authority had not implemented its thinking.

Pointing to the investigation report, the lawyer argued that the investigating officer declared the charges against the petitioner as proven without examining any witnesses to prove the allegations. He argued that the mere production of documents is not sufficient to establish charges unless a witness testifies to its contents.

Referring to the Supreme Court decisions Hardwari Lal vs State of UP & Ors. and Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. The lawyer also argued that without witness examination, the charges cannot be verified and no punishment can be imposed on the petitioner.

In response, counsel for the respondent State submitted that the departmental proceedings were properly conducted, the investigating officer found the charges to be proven, and the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to file a second reasoned response. He added that the disciplinary authority’s decision to impose a penalty was upheld upon appeal, but this decision was rejected.

Underlining that suspension from service under Rule 17(3)(ii)(a) falls within the ambit of Criminal Punishment under Rule 17, the Court held that Rule 17(3)(ii)(a) provides that in any proposed investigation against a Government servant, the disciplinary authority shall not be liable to lay charges. He emphasized that it required him to summarize and list its contents. witnesses supporting each article of impeachment.

The Court observed: “In the current case, when the criminal complaint in Annex 1 of the petition is examined, it does not appear that this mandatory provision has been complied with since the witness list is not provided here. These Rules have entered into force. A crime was charged against the plaintiff on 15.4.2016, and a lawsuit was filed against the plaintiff on 20.6.2016. “mandatory provisions have been violated.”

“Furthermore, although the aforesaid Rule No. 2016 was invoked at the time of initiation of the departmental suit on 20.6.2016, the respondents initiated the suit by invoking Rules 49 and 55 of the repealed Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, aforesaid.” “Considering the repealed Rule 32 of the Rules, 2016 and the savings clause, this shows complete indiscretion on the part of the disciplinary authority in initiating the departmental inquiry.” The court added.

The high court, perusing the investigation report, observed: “When the investigation report dated 20.5.2019 is examined, it is seen that the investigating officer concluded that the accusations were proven by merely quoting the accusations. The investigation report never discussed how the accusations were proven. Not a single witness is heard to prove the accusation against the petitioner.“.

The court found that only documents were presented without witness examination, which was not sufficient to prove the accusations; Proving charges requires witnesses to prove document contents.