As per case facts, a complaint was made regarding land registration irregularities, leading to an inquiry and show cause notices. Petitioners argued that title verification is beyond a registering officer's ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
2026:JHHC:20415
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3306 of 2025
….…..
Santosh Kumar, aged about 53 years, son of Late Babu
Ram Saw, resident of Saraidih More, Chhatarpur,
Ρ.Ο.Chhatarpur, P.S. Chhatarpur, District Palamu,
Jharkhand. ..… Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and
P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration
and Land Reforms, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa P.O. & P.S.Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate,
Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s)
With
W.P.(S) No. 3404 of 2025
….…..
Sujit Kumar, aged about 53 years, son of Late Rajendra
Prasad, resident of Mansha Ram Ka Akhara, P.O. Patna
City, P.S. Mehdiganj, District Patna, Bihar.
..… Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and
P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
2026:JHHC:20415
2
3. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration
and Land Reforms, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa P.O. & P.S.Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate,
Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s)
With
W.P.(S) No. 3423 of 2025
….…..
Mihir Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of Sadan
Prasad, resident of village Hariharganj, P.O.
Hariharganj, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamu,
Jharkhand. ..… Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and
P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration
and Land Reforms, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa P.O. & P.S.Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. The Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate,
Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s)
2026:JHHC:20415
3
With
W.P.(S) No. 3924 of 2025
….…..
Sweta Kumari, aged about 54 years, wife of Chitranjan
Kumar, resident of 401, Triambak Apartment, Baxi
Compound, Near J Sharan Pathology Center, Bariatu,
P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
..… Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and
P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration
and Land Reforms, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate,
Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s)
….….
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
….…
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Adv
(in all cases)
For the Respondents: Mr. K. K. Singh, SC-V
[in W.P.S No. 3306 of 2025]
Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to GP-II
[in W.P.S No. 3423 of 2025]
Mr. Suman Marandi, AC to SC-IV
[in W.P.S No. 3404 of 2025]
Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-I
[in W.P.S No. 3924 of 2025]
….…..
C.A.V. ON: 05/05/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:10/07/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2026:JHHC:20415
4
2. Since, common issues are involved in all these writ
petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of
by this common order. In all the writ petitions, the
respective petitioner has challenged the decision taken to
initiate the departmental proceeding against the petitioners
and further prayer has been made for setting aside the
charge memo and the entire departmental proceedings
initiated against the petitioner.
3. PRAYER
In W.P.(S) No. 3306 of 2025
(i)For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s)/
direction(s) particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing of the
Notification as contained in Memo No. 09/Arop (Dhanbad)-
121/2023 1489 dated 02.06.2025(Annexure-9) issued under
the signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand,
whereby and whereunder a decision has been taken to
initiate Departmental Proceedings against the petitioner under
Rule-17 of the Jharkhand Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 on the basis
of the Charge Memo and consequently set-aside the entire
disciplinary proceedings initiated thereon.
AND
(ii) Further writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) for quashing of the
show cause Notice including Charge Memo as contained in
Memo No. 9/Arop-Dhanbad-121/2023 2524 dated
01.08.2023 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of
Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration
and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has been asked to respond to the
Charge Memo constituted against the petitioner.
AND
(iii)Further writ(s)/ order(s) / direction (s) upon the respondents
to stay the further proceedings in connection with Departmental
Proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Notification as
contained in Memo No. 09/Arop (Dhanbad)-121/2023 1489
dated 02.06.2025.
In W.P.(S) No. 3404 of 2025
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s)/
direction(s) particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing of the
Notification as contained in Memo No. 09/Arop (Dhanbad)-
120/2023 1488 dated 02.06.2025(Annexure-9) issued under
the signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand,
whereby and whereunder a decision has been taken to
initiate Departmental Proceedings against the petitioner
under Rule-17 of the Jharkhand Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 on the basis
2026:JHHC:20415
5
of the Charge Memo and consequently set-aside the entire
disciplinary proceedings initiated thereon.
AND
(ii) Further writ(s)/ order(s) / direction(s) for quashing of the
show cause Notice including Charge Memo as contained in
Memo No. 9/Arop-Dhanbad-120/2023 2532 dated
01.08.2023 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of Under
Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land
Reforms, Government of Jharkhand whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has been asked to respond to the
Charge Memo constituted against the petitioner.
AND
(iii) Further writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) upon the
respondents to stay the further proceedings in connection
with Departmental Proceeding initiated against the petitioner
vide Notification as contained in Memo No. 09/Arop
(Dhanbad)-120/2023 1488 dated 02.06.2025.
In W.P.(S) No. 3423 of 2025
(i)For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s)/ direction(s)
particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing of the Notification
as contained in Memo No. 09/Arop (Dhanbad)-118/2023
1536 dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure-10) issued under the
signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand,
whereby and whereunder a decision has been taken to
initiate Departmental Proceedings against the petitioner under
Rule-17 of the Jharkhand Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 on the basis
of the Charge Memo and -consequently set-aside the entire
disciplinary proceedings initiated thereon.
AND
(ii)Further writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) for quashing of the
show cause Notice including Charge Memo as contained in
letter No. 927 dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure-7) issued under
the signature of Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand,
whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been asked to
respond to the Charge Memo constituted against the
petitioner.
AND
(iii)Further writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) upon the respondents to
stay the further proceedings in connection with Departmental
Proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Notification as
contained in Memo No. No. 09/Arop (Dhanbad)-118/2023 1536
dated 05.06.2025
In W.P.(S) No. 3924 of 2025
(i)For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s)/ direction(s)
particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing of the Notification
as contained in Memo No. 09/Arop (Dhanbad)-119/2023
1490 dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure-8) issued under the
signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand,
whereby and whereunder a decision has been taken to
initiate Departmental Proceedings against the petitioner under
2026:JHHC:20415
6
Rule-17 of the Jharkhand Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 on the basis
of the Charge Memo and -consequently set-aside the entire
disciplinary proceedings initiated thereon.
AND
(ii)Further writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) for quashing of the
show cause Notice including Charge Memo as contained in
letter No. 09/Arop-Dhanbad-119/2023 2537 dated
01.08.2023 (Annexure-5) issued under the signature of
Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration
and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has been asked to respond to the
Charge Memo constituted against the petitioner.
AND
(ii)Further writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) upon the respondents to
stay the further proceedings in connection with Departmental
Proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Notification as
contained in Memo No. No. 09/Arop (Dhanbad)-119/2023 1490
dated 02.06.2025.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
4. On 07.08.2020, a complaint was purportedly made
by one Sri Ramesh Kumar Rahi claiming to be a social
worker regarding the irregularities in registration and
mutation of land in the Office of The District Sub-Registrar,
Dhanbad and various Circle Offices.
5. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration
and Land Reforms by a letter dated 19.08.2020 directed the
Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad to enquire into the said
complaint. The enquiry committee comprising Additional
Collector, Dhanbad and two Executive Magistrates
submitted the report and show cause notice were issued to
the respective petitioner.
6. It was alleged that there was certain mismatch in
the old survey khata/plot numbers and the corresponding
new survey khata/plot numbers as recorded in the
registered sale deeds. Further it was alleged that the
documents annexed with the sale deed was not verified from
the Registration Office.
7. The respective petitioner had submitted a reply
pointing out that the verification of the title and khatiyan/
2026:JHHC:20415
7
records of rights are outside the powers and duties of the
registering officer under Section 21 of the Registration Act,
1908 (herein after referred to as ‘Act’) read with Instruction
No. 135 of the Bihar Registration Manual and further
brought on record the Departmental Letters dated
05.09.2017 and 02.05.2018.
8. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad by a letter
dated 18.11.2020 had forwarded the preliminary enquiry
report to the department and a second show cause notice
was issued to the respective petitioner. The respective
petitioner had submitted their reply and ultimately charge
memo was issued to the respective petitioner after three/
five years from the date of the original complaint.
9. The gist of the allegations as mentioned in the
charge memo of the respective petitioners are set out in the
chart herein below:-
Case No. Charges
W.P(S) No. 3306 of
2025
During the tenure of the petitioner on the
post of District Sub-Registrar, Dhanbad, in
the 29 registered deeds which were registered
in between 2017 to 2019 there was mismatch
between the Old Survey Khata/ Plot
Numbers and the corresponding New Survey
Khata/ Plot Numbers as recorded in those
deeds. The petitioner has not verified the
documents annexed with the registration
deed from the Office of the Circle Officer,
Dhanbad.
W.P(S) No. 3404 of
2025
During the tenure of the petitioner on the
post of Sub-Registrar, Govindpur, Dhanbad,
in the 13 registered deeds which were
registered in between 2017 to 2018 there was
mismatch between the Old Survey Khata/
Plot Numbers and the corresponding New
Survey Khata/ Plot Numbers as recorded in
those deeds. The petitioner has not verified
the documents annexed with the registration
deed from the Office of the Circle Officer,
Govindpur, Dhanbad.
2026:JHHC:20415
8
W.P(S) No. 3423 of
2025
During the tenure of the petitioner on the
post of District Sub-Registrar, Govindpur,
Dhanbad, in the 01 registered deed which
was registered on 06.03.2020 there was
mismatch between the Old Survey Khata/
Plot Numbers and the corresponding New
Survey Khata/ Plot Numbers as recorded in
those deed. The petitioner has not verified
the documents annexed with the registration
deed from the Office of the Circle Officer,
Govindpur, Dhanbad.
W.P(S) No. 3924 of
2025
During the tenure of the petitioner on the
post of District Sub-Registrar, Dhanbad, in
the 08 registered deeds which were registered
between 2018 to 2019 there was mismatch
between the Old Survey Khata/ Plot
Numbers and the corresponding New Survey
Khata/ Plot Numbers as recorded in those
deeds. The petitioner has not verified the
documents annexed with the registration
deed from the Office of the Circle Officer,
Dhanbad.
Thereafter, departmental proceedings were
initiated against the respective petitioner under Rule 17 of
the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 and the notification of
initiation of the departmental proceeding and charge
memo are impugned in the respective writ petitions.
The State Government has filed the counter
affidavit in the respective writ petition and has admitted
the fact that the Registrar has no power to verify the title,
but is empowered under section 21 of the Act read with
instruction no. 135 of the Bihar Registration Manual to
decide whether property is registrable.
2026:JHHC:20415
9
ANALYSIS
10. The gist of the allegations against the respective
petitioner was that when the respective petitioners were
posted as District Sub-Registrar/ Sub-Registrar, at
Dhanbad/ Govindpur at the relevant point of time and
the charges were that the respective petitioner has not
verified the title of the registered deeds produced before
them and the charges are similar and same in nature
with respect to other charges, as the other charges is with
regard to different registered deeds; however the crux of
the allegation is that the respective petitioner has not
verified all the documents relating to titles and there was
certain mismatch in the old survey khata/ plot numbers
and corresponding new survey khata/ plot numbers as
recorded in the registered deeds.
11. Rule 58 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Rules, 1959
reads as under:-
“58. Distribution of copies of record-of-rights to
parties interested.-
(a) A copy of the record-of-rights as finally published, or
an extract therefrom shall be made over to the
landlord concerned, or, where there are more
landlords than on, to their common agent or common
manager, or, it there be no common agent or common
manager, to such person among the landlords as the
Revenue-officer may think fit. The copy of extract
shall bear a certificate, under the Revenue-officer’s
signature and seal, that it is a copy of or extract from
the record-of-rights as finally published.
(b) An extract from the khatian relating to his tenancy
shall be given to every tenant under the seal of the
Revenue-officer and under the signature of an officer
2026:JHHC:20415
10
duly authorized by the Revenue-officer to give
copies.
(c) The cost of the preparation of copies of records, or of
extracts therefrom, supplied to landlords and
tenants under this rule, shall ordinarily be included
in the cost of the survey and settlement, and no
separate charge shall be levied from the landlords
and tenants in respect of such copies except by the
orders of the Local Government.
(d) If the Local Government so directs copies of the maps
shall be prepared and distributed to the landlords
and tenants concerned. The cost of the preparation
of the copies so distributed shall be included in such
of the costs of the settlement as are recoverable from
the landlords and tenants, and no separate charge
shall be levied from them in respect thereof.”
12. Thus, the responsibilities for the correctness of
survey/ record of rights particulars are statutorily fixed
upon the Revenue Officer under Rule 58(b) of the
Chotanagpur Tenancy Rules, 1959 and not upon the
Registering Authority.
13. However, what is the scope of registering
authority has been set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of K. Gopi versus The Sub-Registrar
reported in (2026) 2 SCC 696. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of
the judgment reads as under:-
“18. The registering officer is not concerned with the title
held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power
to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if
an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in
respect of a land in respect of which he has no title,
the registering officer cannot refuse to register the
document if all the procedural compliances are made
and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration
charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under
the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of
the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to
ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property
which he is seeking to transfer.
2026:JHHC:20415
11
19. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the
parties to the document are present before him and
the parties admit execution thereof before him,
subject to making procedural compliances as
narrated above, the document must be registered.
The execution and registration of a document have
the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that
the executant possesses. If the executant has no
right, title, or interest in the property, the registered
document cannot effect any transfer.”
14. The legal position after the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Gopi
(supra) is that the Registering Authority has no
adjudicatory power over the executant title, even if the
executant has no title, the Registering Authority cannot
refuse registration once stamp duty is paid and further
ascertaining the vendor’s title is simply not the Registrar’s
function under the Act.
15. Section 21 of the Act reads as under:-
“21.Description of property and maps or plans.—
(1) No non-testamentary document relating to immovable
property shall be accepted for registration unless it
contains a description of such property sufficient to
identify the same.
(2) Houses in towns shall be described as situate on the
north or other side of the street or road (which
should be specified) to which they front, and by their
existing and former occupancies, and by their
numbers if the houses in such street or road are
numbered.
(3) Other houses and lands shall be described by their
name, if any, and as being the territorial division in
which they are situate, and by their superficial
contents, the roads and other properties on to which
they abut, and their existing occupancies, and also,
whenever it is practicable, by reference to a
Government map or survey.
2026:JHHC:20415
12
(4) No non-testamentary document containing a map or
plan of any property comprised therein shall be
accepted for registration unless it is accompanied by
a true copy of the map or plan, or, in case such
property is situate in several districts, by such
number of true copies of the map or plan as are
equal to the number of such districts.”
16. Section 21(1) of the Registration Act, 1908
requires only that a non-testamentary document
“contains a description of such property sufficient to
identify the same”, and sub-sections (2) and (3) merely
prescribes the manner in which such description is to be
furnished by the party presenting the document by
reference to locality, boundaries and, where practicable,
government map or survey.
17. The provision casts no duty upon the Registering
Officer independently to verify the correctness of the
Khata/ Plot number so furnished.
18. Section 21 of the Act requires that the description
of the property in the document should be sufficient to
identify it. It does not provide for any enquiry at that
stage or later by the Registrar.
19. Having set out the above legal position whether
the stand of the respondents that Section 21 of the Act is
attracted, the State Government has conceded in their
counter affidavit at paragraphs 24 and 26 in W.P(S) No.
3306 of 2025 that a Registering Officer “does not have the
2026:JHHC:20415
13
power to check the title of property” and that his powers
under section 21 of the Act read with Instruction No. 135
of the Bihar Registration Manual is confined to satisfying
himself as to the registrability of a document, and not to
adjudication of title or verification of the correctness of
survey/ record of rights entries.
20. In view of the above provisions, it is very clear
that the allegations leveled against the respective
petitioner cannot be said to be statutory functions/ duties
of the Registrar, hence the allegations do not make out
any case of misconduct against the respective petitioner.
21. From records, it appears that pursuant to the
original complaint dated 07.08.2020, the enquiry report
was submitted on 27.10.2020 and the respective
petitioners submitted their explanation in the year 2020;
however, the charge memo was issued in the year
2023/2025 i.e. nearly three/five years later and the
impugned notification directing for initiation of
departmental proceedings under Rule 17 was issued in
the year 2025, almost five years after the original
complaint and such prolonged inordinate and
unexplained delay by the department causes serious
prejudice to the respective petitioner.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
2026:JHHC:20415
14
Amresh Shrivastava versus The State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 693
has held at paragraph 16 and 17 as under:-
“16. In the present case, we are of the considered view
that the charges alleged against the Appellant in the
chargesheet fall under the category of a wrongful order,
which does not appear to have been influenced by
extraneous factors or any form of gratification. It appears
that the order has been passed in good faith, without any
indication of dishonesty. Furthermore, the facts outlined in
the Show Cause Notice do not suggest any such
impropriety. The power exercised by the Appellant in his
capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing the order of Land
Settlement Order, cannot be considered of a nature that
would warrant disciplinary proceedings against him. The
decision relied upon by the Counsel for the Appellant as
mentioned above, supports this view. Consequently, the
first question is answered in favor of the Appellant.
17. As to the second question, regarding whether delay is
a ground for stopping the departmental proceedings at the
stage of the chargesheet itself, suffice it to say that this
varies from case to case. However, in the instant case
where there is unexplained inordinate delay in initiating
departmental proceedings despite the alleged misconduct
being within the knowledge of the department, but still no
departmental proceedings are initiated, the answer must
go in favour of the employee.”
23. In the case of Amresh Shrivastava (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court has interfered with the allegation in
the show cause notice and chargesheet which reflected
that the settlement order passed by the quasi-judicial
authority was wrong with no suggestion of bribery, mala-
fide, ulterior motive or recklessness.
24. In these cases, there is no allegation against the
respective petitioner which indicates recklessness, undue
favour, corrupt motive, misconduct or extraneous
2026:JHHC:20415
15
influence. There is no allegation, much less any finding,
of pecuniary gain, collusion or mala-fide against the
respective petitioner.
25. In view of the aforesaid facts, law and the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India,
the following order is passed: -
i) Notification No. 09/Arop(Dhanbad)-
121/2023 1489 dated 02.06.2025 annexed as
Annexure-9 and Charge Memo as contained in
Memo No. 9/Arop-Dhanbad-121/2524 dated
01.08.2023 annexed as Annexure-6 in W.P(S) No.
3306 of 2025, are hereby, quashed and set-aside.
ii) Notification No. 09/Arop (Dhanbad)-
120/2023 1488 dated 02.06.2025 annexed as
Annexure-9 and Charge Memo as contained in
Memo No. 9/Arop-Dhanbad-120/2023 2532
dated 01.08.2023 annexed as Annexure-6 in
W.P(S) No. 3404 of 2025, are hereby, quashed
and set-aside.
iii) Notification No. 09/Arop (Dhanbad)-
118/2023 1536 dated 05.06.2025 annexed as
Annexure-10 and Charge Memo as contained in
Letter No. 927 dated 03.04.2025 annexed as
2026:JHHC:20415
16
Annexure-7 in W.P(S) No. 3423 of 2025, are
hereby, quashed and set-aside.
iv) Notification No. 09/Arop (Dhanbad)-
119/2023 1490 dated 02.06.2025 annexed as
Annexure-8 and Charge Memo as contained in
Letter No. 09/Arop-Dhanbad-119/2023 2537
dated 01.08.2023 annexed as Annexure-5 in
W.P(S) No. 3924 of 2025, are hereby, quashed
and set-aside.
26. Accordingly, all these writ applications stand
allowed. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:10 /07/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded on
10.07.2026
Legal Notes
Add a Note....