ORDER : Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. 1. The appellants-State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary and others have assailed the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.06.2021 in W.P.(S) No. 363 of 2020 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner-respondent was allowed and an order was passed to the effect that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is non-est in the eyes of law and was quashed. A further direction was given that the ad hoc promotion given to the petitioner shall be regularized with effect from 06.07.2015. By filing the aforesaid writ application, the petitioner, in fact, approached the Court for the second time. 2. The facts of the case may be narrated in the following chronological order: On 20.06.2006, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Collector by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand. On 22.06.2010, respondent No.5 vide letter of the said date relieved the petitioner from the charge of the Circle Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh to the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa. On 02.07.2010, respondent no. 5 recommended for initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. On 16.07.2010, respondent no. 5 vide letter of the said date reverted back the services of the petitioner to the post of Circle Officer, Sadar Hazaribagh. On 29.09.2010, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. On 06.08.2013 after a gap of almost three years the respondent asked the petitioner to file her show cause. The petitioner filed her show cause on 06.09.2013 putting forth her defence in the departmental proceeding. On 28.04.2017 a departmental proceeding was initiated. On 15.05.2017, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and filed her reply. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and exonerated the petitioner from two charges out of 3 and held her guilty of charge no. 3. On 02.01.2018 a second show cause notice was issued against the petitioner directing her to file reply. On 16.03.2018, the petitioner submitted her reply against second show cause. On 29.11.2018, the respondents have passed the order of punishment of withholding three increments without cumulative effect. 3. On 02.01.2018 a second show cause notice was issued against the petitioner directing her to file reply. On 16.03.2018, the petitioner submitted her reply against second show cause. On 29.11.2018, the respondents have passed the order of punishment of withholding three increments without cumulative effect. On 11.09.2018, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 584 of 2018 for grant of promotion and this Court vide its order dated 11.09.2018 directed the respondents to hold a fresh meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion, preferably within a period of three months from the date of the order and further directed that if the petitioner is found fit for promotion, the same shall be considered and granted to the petitioner from the date, her juniors have been granted promotion with all consequential benefits. After such order, the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 25.04.2019 and the promotion of the petitioner was kept on hold citing with the currency of punishment inflicted upon the petitioner on 29.11.2018. The First Departmental Promotion Committee was held in the year 2015 and the case of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that the A.C.R.(s) of the petitioner were not available. It is submitted that it is not the fault of the petitioner that the A.C.R.s were not submitted by the reporting authority. Thus, it is clear that after the order was passed in earlier application, though her case was considered for promotion but, she was not granted promotion, so the present writ application has been filed, judgment of which is impugned before us with two prayers; firstly, the petitioner prayed that the punishment awarded to her in the departmental proceeding be set aside and the consequential benefits of promotion be extended to her. The learned Single Judge took into consideration the materials available before him and came to the conclusion that the punishment of withholding three increments only for the purpose of absence for three days is disproportionate, as there is justification for her absence. It is also not disputed at this stage that during the period for which she remained absent for three days, she has suffered an abortion and also was given treatment in a hospital. 3. It is also not disputed at this stage that during the period for which she remained absent for three days, she has suffered an abortion and also was given treatment in a hospital. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed gross error on record by not giving any finding on charge no. 3 of the departmental proceedings. For the purposes of proper appreciation, we consider the charges levelled against the petitioner, which are as follows:- vkjksi& 1- 1- Jherh vydk dqekjh] >k0iz0ls0] rRdkyhu vapy vf/kdkjh] lnj gtkjhckx }kjk fnukad 17-06-2010 ls 19-06-2010 rd dk vkdfLed vodk'k rFkk fnukad 20-06-2010 dks jfookjh; vodk'k dk miHkksx djus dk vkosnu QSDl ls Hkstdj vuf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr jghaA vodk'k esa tkus ds iwoZ buds }kjk fu;a=h inkf/kdkjh ls iwokZuqefr ugha fy;k x;kA 2- vuf/kd`r vodk'k ij tkus ds dkj.k fofHkUu izdkj ds ;kstuk ls lacaf/kr dk;Z ,oa izek.k i= fuxZr djus dk dk;Z ckf/kr gqvkA 3- vapy dk;kZy;] lnj dk lkekU; jksdM+ iath] 2010 rFkk nkf[ky [kkfjt iath&27 ¼2010&11½ ds la/kkj.k esa ykijokgh cjrh x;h gSA** Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Enquiring Officer. Admittedly, no witness was examined on behalf of the Department. The documents were produced and on perusal of the same, the Enquiring Officer passed the order. It is also borne out from the record that the Enquiring Officer held that charge nos. 1 and 2 were proved in part, however, we are of the view that as it has been established that the petitioner was at that time was suffering from complications arising out of pregnancy and her absence was justified. However, it is clear that the Enquiring Officer found the petitioner guilty of charge no. 3. 4. 1 and 2 were proved in part, however, we are of the view that as it has been established that the petitioner was at that time was suffering from complications arising out of pregnancy and her absence was justified. However, it is clear that the Enquiring Officer found the petitioner guilty of charge no. 3. 4. The Enquiry Report, which is part of Annexure-10 of the writ petition reveals the findings at page 71, made by the Enquiring Officer:- ^^tk¡p ,oa fu"d"kZ %& vkjksih ds }kjk bl rF; dk dgha [k.Mu@izfrokn ugha fd;k x;k gS fd ^^vapy dk;kZy;] lnj gtkjhckx dh lkekU; jksdM+ iath ds tk¡p ds Øe esa ;g ik;k x;k fd fnukad 16-02-10 ls 16-06-10 rd jksdM+ iath ij ukftj ,oa iz/kku lgk;d dk gLrk{kj Fkk] fdUrq vapy vf/kdkjh dk gLrk{kj ugha FkkA blh izdkj nkf[ky [kkfjt iath&27 ds Øekad 17 ls 38 rd uEcj vafdr Fkk] fdUrq lHkh dkWye Hkjs gq, ugha FksA nkf[ky [kkfjt Lohd`r fy[kk gqvk Fkk ijUrq vapy vf/kdkjh dk gLrk{kj vafdr ugha Fkk**A vkjksih us ;g Lo;a Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vkdfLed vodk'k ls ykSVus ds ckn jksdM+ cgh ,oa nkf[ky [kkfjt iath ij gLrk{kj fd;k x;k gSA jksdM+ cgh dk la/kkj.k ,d vR;ar egRoiw.kZ dk;Z gSA fof/k O;oLFkk ,oa vU; dk;ksZa dh O;Lrrk dh vkM+ esa jksdM+ cgh dk lR;kiu pkj eghuksa ds ckn djuk fu;ekuqdwy ugha gSA vr% vkjksi la[;k&3 iw.kZr% izekf.kr gksrk gSA** 5. On the basis of such finding on charge no. 3, the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment. However, it is brought to our notice that the charge framed especially charge no. 3 against the petitioner is not specific and it is vague. It has been never charged by the department that from 16.02.2010 to 16.06.2010 the jksdM+ iath i.e., the Cash Register, was not signed by her and also there is no specific allegation in charge no. 3 that nkf[ky [kkfjt iath] i.e., Mutation Register No. 27 was not signed by her from Sl. No. 17 to 38. However, a specific finding has been given thereof. 6. This Court relies on the reported case of Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and others, (2013) 6 SCC 515 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration its earlier decision passed in the case of Surath Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. No. 17 to 38. However, a specific finding has been given thereof. 6. This Court relies on the reported case of Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and others, (2013) 6 SCC 515 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration its earlier decision passed in the case of Surath Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. State of W.B., (1970) 3 SCC 548 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is not permissible to hold an enquiry on vague charges, as the same do not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make out an effective defence as he will be unaware of the exact nature of the allegations against him, and what kind of defence he would put of her rebuttal thereof. The Court in the aforesaid case of Surath Chandra Chakrabarty (supra), which was quoted in the later judgment observed that the grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and other circumstances which it is proposed to be taken considering in passing orders have also to be stated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the rule embodies the principle which is one of the specific contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity of defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are and on which charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that where the chargesheet is accompanied by the statement of facts and the allegations are not specific in the chargesheet but, are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a situation, both constitute the same document, it cannot be held that the charges were not specific, definite and clear and the enquiry stood vitiated. However, such situation is not available in this case. 7. In this case, not only the charge is vague but, also there is no statement of facts or allegations against the petitioner attached to the chargesheet. Moreover, we also found from the records that on one day, the enquiry was concluded. However, such situation is not available in this case. 7. In this case, not only the charge is vague but, also there is no statement of facts or allegations against the petitioner attached to the chargesheet. Moreover, we also found from the records that on one day, the enquiry was concluded. It is apparent from the record that no witnesses were examined, so obviously, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine any witness regarding documents relied upon. Certain documents were produced before the Enquiring Officer and the findings were given. The petitioner was also not given opportunity to produce any rebuttal evidence. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 in paragraph 14 has held as under : “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.” Thus, from the aforesaid judgment, it is quite clear that mere tendering of documents cannot be a proof of the said documents in a departmental proceeding. 9. It is argued by the learned counsel for appellants that no finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge, as far as charge no. 3 is concerned. 10. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Sr. S.C.-I appearing for the appellant-State, relying upon the judgment rendered in Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a case involving departmental proceeding and the punishment awarded to the delinquent employee cannot sit as an appellate court. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a case involving departmental proceeding and the punishment awarded to the delinquent employee cannot sit as an appellate court. The ratio is not applicable to this case, as the learned Single Judge did not re-appreciate any material or evidence that was laid down before the Enquiring Officer to come to a definite finding and therefore, we are of the opinion that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts of this case. 11. We are of the considered opinion that no purpose will be served by setting aside the impugned judgment and remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for giving a finding thereon, as we come to a definite and clear finding that charge no. 3 is not only vague, it is also not supported by appropriate documents as stated above. While quoting the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surath Chandra Chakrabarty (supra), we find no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. 12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 13. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.