Jharkhand HC reinstates revenue official, quashes compulsory retirement order
Ranchi, June 22: The Jharkhand High Court has quashed a state government order compulsorily retiring a revenue official and directed his immediate…
Ranchi, June 22: The Jharkhand High Court has quashed a state government order compulsorily retiring a revenue official and directed his immediate reinstatement, holding that the departmental proceedings against him were based on “no evidence” and suffered from serious procedural irregularities.
Justice Deepak Roshan passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Kumar Satyam Bhardwaj, a Revenue Karmchari, challenging the punishment imposed on him under the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016.
Court Finds Charges Were Not Properly Proved
The petitioner had been compulsorily retired through an order dated February 24, 2026, with only two-thirds of his pension being allowed. The departmental proceedings were initiated over allegations of manipulation of revenue records while he was posted as Circle Inspector in Balumath.
The High Court noted that key witnesses, including the Revenue Sub-Inspector who was the custodian of the records and had been cited as a departmental witness, were never examined during the inquiry. The court also observed that the petitioner’s request to examine defence witnesses was not accepted.
Timing of Proceedings Raises Questions
The court noted that the departmental proceedings were initiated when the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer was under consideration and after he had approached the court regarding promotion-related grievances.
Justice Roshan observed that the inquiry officer relied on irrelevant materials while ignoring relevant evidence produced by the petitioner in his defence.
‘Case of Awful Victimisation’
In a strong observation, the court held that the punishment order was based on no evidence and was vitiated by unacceptable procedural irregularities. It described the case as one involving “awful victimisation” and ruled that the disciplinary action could not be sustained in law.
The court also referred to several Supreme Court judgments holding that charges in departmental proceedings must be supported by evidence and that documents cannot be treated as proved without examination of witnesses.
Reinstatement Ordered
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the order of punishment and directed the state government to reinstate Bhardwaj within two weeks. It further ordered the authorities to decide on all consequential benefits, including back wages and promotion-related claims, within six weeks.
With the ruling, the court brought to an end a prolonged dispute involving the petitioner’s seniority, promotion and disciplinary proceedings.
