JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer 1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4319 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment of censure and stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition. Facts 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, are required to be enumerated, which reads as under: 3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that she was posted as Professor and Head of Department, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad. 4. In terms of the order passed by this Court in A.B.A. No.6637 of 2018 and letter no. 639/2019, dated 13.02.2019, written by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Barwadda P.S., Dhanbad, a committee/ medical Board was constituted by the Superintendent of Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad vide office order no.325 dated 15.02.2019. From the said office order dated 15.02.2019, it appears that four heads of different Departments of the Hospitals were appointed in the said Committee/ Medical Board to submit a medical report on the documents so produced in relation to Barwadda P.S. Case No. 167/18, related to death of one Anjuman Baano. Thereafter, a reminder was also sent to the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital regarding the medical report which was to be received before 01.03.2019 before the Jharkhand High Court. On receipt of said letter, the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital orally informed the petitioner to submit desired report on immediate terms. On receipt of information, the office of the Head of the Department of all the Departments was duly informed in terms of the letter no. 325 dated 15.02.2019 for proceeding in the matter. 5. In terms of said letter, Dr. Rajiv Nayan, Head of Department of Radiology; Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Assistant Professor of Medicine Department and Dr. Swapan Kumar Saraak, Tutor, FMT Department came for meeting of the Medical Board. The issues were discussed and accordingly, after considering facts on record, unanimously medical report was prepared on 25.02.2019 and thereafter forwarded to the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital vide letter no. 135 dated 25.02.2019. 6. Arun Kumar Verma, Assistant Professor of Medicine Department and Dr. Swapan Kumar Saraak, Tutor, FMT Department came for meeting of the Medical Board. The issues were discussed and accordingly, after considering facts on record, unanimously medical report was prepared on 25.02.2019 and thereafter forwarded to the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital vide letter no. 135 dated 25.02.2019. 6. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that after submission of medical report, she was not aware as to when the same was sent before the High Court. She was acquainted only when questions were raised on the report of the Medical Board because of the fact that Heads of the Medicine Department and FMT Departments were not present on the date of meeting of the Board. It was also brought to her knowledge that show-cause was issued to the respective heads for not being present on the date of meeting of the Medical Board and for the reasons of which Dr. Swapan Kumar Saarak was present in the meeting who had performed postmortem, report of which was in question. The presence of Dr. Swapan Kumar Saarak in the Medical Board itself shows that the report of the Medical Board was under cloud. 7. It is further case of the writ petitioner that without issuance of any show-cause, writ petitioner was asked to reply as to why not punishment under Rule 14 of the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 should be imposed on her for her negligence and administrative lapses. 8. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted her reply to the respondent no. 2 admitting her guilt and clearly mentioned that it was due to inadvertence the said mistake was committed and the same was not intentional. She would have called upon a new Medical Board should have been called upon and previous report could have been rejected and fresh report could have been submitted if the same was brought to her knowledge by Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital. 9. The writ petitioner duly submitted that it was sheer mistake without having any malafide intention and, accordingly, requested for exoneration from the charges. However, vide Memo No. 962/PMCH, dated 24.08.2020 issued by the Principal, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad, in which copy of Memo No. 19/Charge (Me. Ka. PMCH) – 03-02/2019-53(19) Ranchi, dated 10.08.2020 issued under the signature of respondent no. However, vide Memo No. 962/PMCH, dated 24.08.2020 issued by the Principal, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad, in which copy of Memo No. 19/Charge (Me. Ka. PMCH) – 03-02/2019-53(19) Ranchi, dated 10.08.2020 issued under the signature of respondent no. 2, she was saddled with punishment of censure as well as stoppage of one pay increment without cumulative effect. 10. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove that the appellant-writ petitioner, who was working as Professor and Head of Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Patliputra Medical college and Hospital, Dhanbad, has departmentally been proceeded for the charges leveled against her in inducting one doctor, namely, Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak in the team constituted for the purpose of giving a report with respect to the condition of the deceased lady, as to whether, she was pregnant at the time of death. The aforesaid doctor, namely, Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak who was conducted the post mortem has given report that at the time of death, the deceased lady was not pregnant. 11. But the said report was doubted and hence, this Court, while considering the anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No.6637 of 2018 has directed the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital to constitute a Board of Doctors to submit a report regarding the genuineness of the certificate issued by the respective Doctors replied upon by both the parties. The Committee was constituted but the said doctor, namely, Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak was also inducted in the said Committee which has been taken seriously by this Court while considering the anticipatory bail application by making observation that inducting Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak as one of the Doctors in the Medical Board whose document was under scrutiny, has been held to be not in pursuant to the order dated 08.02.2019 passed in the said anticipatory bail application. 12. The aforesaid conduct of the writ petitioner was deprecated. The competent authority, i.e., the Joint Secretary of the Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department has leveled allegation against the writ petitioner of irregularity based upon the aforesaid observation made by this Court while considering the aforesaid anticipatory bail application. 13. 12. The aforesaid conduct of the writ petitioner was deprecated. The competent authority, i.e., the Joint Secretary of the Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department has leveled allegation against the writ petitioner of irregularity based upon the aforesaid observation made by this Court while considering the aforesaid anticipatory bail application. 13. The appellant-writ petitioner has accepted the guilt, however, tried to clarify the position but the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the irregularity having been admitted by the appellant-writ petitioner, has inflicted the punishment of censure and stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has preferred the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4319 of 2020 challenging the order of punishment dated 10.08.2020 but the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the same by taking into consideration the specific observation made by this Court while considering the aforesaid anticipatory bail application, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Argument of the appellant-writ petitioner 14. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted by taking the following grounds in assailing the impugned order that: - (i) The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that although, the punishment was inflicted in view of the provision of Rule 14 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 but no adequate and sufficient opportunity has been provided, since, no proceeding has ever been initiated, rather, on the basis of the show cause only, the punishment of censure and withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect, has been initiated. (ii) The order of punishment if is to be inflicted upon the delinquent employee who is the public servant which will only be on the basis of the provision of Conduct Rules by following the due procedure as laid down, otherwise, there will be no meaning of the Conduct Rules which is exactly the fact of the present case herein. But the aforesaid fact has also not been appreciated in right perspective 15. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted the order impugned suffers from an error and hence, not sustainable in the eye of law. Argument of the respondent-State 16. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Kr. But the aforesaid fact has also not been appreciated in right perspective 15. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted the order impugned suffers from an error and hence, not sustainable in the eye of law. Argument of the respondent-State 16. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, learned AC to SC(L&C)-I appearing for the State has defended the impugned order on the following grounds that: - (i) The question of initiating a regular proceeding as required under the Conduct Rules, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in view of the fact that the writ petitioner has admitted her guilt, which would be evident from the response submitted in pursuance to the show cause notice, hence, the authority after taking into consideration the fact that the guilt has been accepted, as such, inflicted the minor punishment of censure and without holding one annual increment without cumulative effect. (ii) The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid fact as also coupled with the observation made by this Court while considering the anticipatory bail application, wherein, this Court has made serious observation of floating the direction passed by this Court in the aforesaid anticipatory bail application being ABA No.6637 of 2018. 17. Learned State Counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering the aforesaid admission on the part of the delinquent employee, i.e., the appellant herein, if has refused to interfere with the impugned order coupled with the observation made by this Court while considering the aforesaid anticipatory bail application, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis 18. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions, has gathered therefrom that the issue which has been raised in assailing the order of punishment is that merely on the basis of the show cause the punishment of censure and withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect, has been inflicted without taking recourse of the process as provided under Rule 14 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016. 19. There is no dispute that if any Conduct Rules have been formulated, the delinquent employee is to be dealt with under the process of the aforesaid Conduct Rules. 20. 19. There is no dispute that if any Conduct Rules have been formulated, the delinquent employee is to be dealt with under the process of the aforesaid Conduct Rules. 20. Herein also, the Conduct Rules have been formulated in the year 2016 known as “Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016” which contains a provision under Rule 14 to inflict punishment as per the list of punishments enshrined therein. 21. The said Rule also contains the process upon which the punishment, as enshrined under Rule 14, is to be inflicted. 22. The process in inflicting the punishment whether minor or major is also required in order to provide an opportunity said to be adequate and sufficient that is also the mandate of the Public Servant (Inquires) Act, 1850. 23. But the fact which has been taken into consideration while inflicting the punishment is the admission of irregularity by the appellant. 24. This Court, in order to appreciate, as to whether there was any admission on the part of the appellant or not, needs to refer herein the reply to the show cause notice dated 22.05.2020, which is being referred as under:- 25. It is evident from the reply to the show cause notice dated 22.05.2020 that the appellant has specifically admitted her guilt. The question, therefore, is required to be answered as to whether if irregularity upon which the punishment has been imposed, has been admitted, then is it require to provide an opportunity by initiating the regular proceeding under the Conduct Rules. 26. The law is well settled that the inquiry is only required to be conducted if the factual aspect or the allegation is being disputed so that there may be appreciation of the factual aspect based upon the defence which is to be put-forth by the delinquent employee. 27. In contrary, if allegation has been admitted and if in such circumstances, the inquiry will be directed to be conducted then will it not invite the empty formality and futile exercise. 28. Further it is settled connotation of law that Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. 28. Further it is settled connotation of law that Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & others, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at paragraph-64 which is being quoted herein below : "64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India." 29. In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 , wherein, their Lordships have held at paragraph 39, which is being quoted herein below:- "39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason-perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling-it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no difference”-meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker." 30. It is further settled law that in case of admission of guilt, if there is no chance of change in the factual position then in such circumstances, then in such circumstances there is no requirement of the enquiry or to provide the opportunity of hearing, hence no purpose would have been served since it will lead to futile exercise and empty formality. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. Karunamoy Banerjee, reported in (1968) 1 SCR 251 , wherein, it has been held at paragraph-19 as under:- "19. We must, however, emphasize that the rules of natural justice, as laid down by this Court, will have to be observed, in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a workman. If the allegations are denied by the workman, it is needless to state that the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management; and the witnesses called by the management, must be allowed to be cross-examined by the workman, and the latter must also be given an opportunity to examine himself and adduce any other evidence that he might choose in support of his plea. But, if the workman admits his guilt to insist upon the management to let in evidence about the allegations, will, in our opinion, only be an empty formality." 31. It is also settled position of law that if the delinquent himself has admitted the charges/guilt and the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer also prove the charge any procedural lapse would be immaterial. Reference in this regard may be taken from Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. Vs. It is also settled position of law that if the delinquent himself has admitted the charges/guilt and the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer also prove the charge any procedural lapse would be immaterial. Reference in this regard may be taken from Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri, AIR 2010 SC 75 , wherein, at paragraph-13 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under : "13. It has been time and again said that it is not open to the High Court to examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions and that power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. In a case such as the present one where the delinquent admitted the charges, no scope is left to differ with the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry officer about the proof of charges. In the absence of any procedural illegality or irregularity in conduct of the departmental enquiry, it has to be held that the charges against the delinquent stood proved and warranted no interference." 32. It is further settled position of law that where in domestic/departmental enquiry, the delinquent had unequivocally admitted the guilt despite opportunity to deny the charges at final stage before the Enquiry Officer and had also not denied the charges in preliminary hearing, then the delinquent cannot be permitted to resile from admission made by him before the Enquiry Officer. Reference in this regard may be made from the Judgment rendred by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj H. Mishra Vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 313 wherein at paragraph-35, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:- "35. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error in rejecting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. We are not inclined to examine the issue that the actions of the appellant would not constitute a misconduct under the Rules. In view of the admissions made by the appellant, no evidence was adduced before the enquiry officer by either of the parties. Once the enquiry officer had declined to accept the conditional admissions made by the appellant, it was open to him to deny the charges. In view of the admissions made by the appellant, no evidence was adduced before the enquiry officer by either of the parties. Once the enquiry officer had declined to accept the conditional admissions made by the appellant, it was open to him to deny the charges. But he chose to make an unequivocal admission, instead of reiterating his earlier denial as recorded in preliminary hearing held on 26-12-1994. The appellant cannot now be permitted to resile from the admission made before the enquiry officer.-----" 33. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case herein, the background starts from the consideration of this Court in the matter of anticipatory bail (ABA No.6637 of 2018), wherein, the learned Single Judge, while considering the aforesaid anticipatory bail application of the accused person, has directed the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital to constitute a Board of Doctors to submit a report regarding the genuineness of the certificate issued by the respective Doctors replied upon by both the parties. 34. The situation was warranted for constituting the medical board since the postmortem examination conducted by Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak has not found any sign of pregnancy upon the deceased lady. The same was doubted, hence, a Board of Doctors was directed to be constituted. 35. But the appellant-writ petitioner, who happens to be the Professor and Head of Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad, while constituting the Medical Board, has also inducted the doctor, namely, Swapan Kumar Sarak who has conducted the postmortem. 36. This Court, while considering the anticipatory bail application, has considered the conduct of the appellant to be not proper in inducting the said doctor, namely, Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak as one of the members of the Committee, since, his postmortem report was under scrutiny by the Committee as per the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by this Court in A.B.A. No.6637 of 2018. 37. The Court has deprecated the conduct of the appellant by holding therein that the Superintendent of Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad has not acted in compliance of the order dated 08.02.2019, for ready reference, both the orders, i.e., order dated 08.02.2019 and order dated 01.03.2019 are being referred as under:- "05/08.02.2019 The counter-affidavit filed by the State is hereby taken on record. This Court directs the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad, to constitute a Board of Doctors to submit a report regarding the genuineness of the certificate issued by the respective Doctors relied upon by both the parties. The Investigating officer of the case is directed to bring all the fact to the knowledge of Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad. Put up this case on 1st March, 2019. It is expected that by that time, the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad, shall submit its report. Let a copy of this order be handed-over to Mr. V.K. Tiwary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State forthwith for necessary compliance." Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx "08/01.03.2019 Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 167 of 2018 for the offence registered under sections 498A, 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide order dated 08.02.2019, this Court has directed the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad, to constitute a Board of Doctors to submit a report regarding the genuineness of the certificate issued by the respective Doctors. The petitioners are relying upon the medical certificate issued by Dr. Urmila Sinha of B.P. Sinha Memorial Clinic. On the basis of that sonography has been done by B.S.M., CLINILAB, Diagnostic & Imaging Centre Private Limited, Nayabazar, Dhanbad under the signature of Dr. Yogesh Anand. Learned counsel for the State has relying upon the post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak has submitted that on that day Doctor has not found any sign of pregnancy. This Court vide order dated 08.02.2019 has directed the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital to constitute a Board of Doctors to submit a report regarding the genuineness of the certificate issued by the respective Doctors relied upon by both the parties. This court feels that the Superintendent of Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad has not acted in compliance of order dated 08.02.2019 and thus has incorporated Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak as one of the Doctor in the Medical Board whose document is under scrutiny. This is deprecated by this Court. The letter no. 135 dated 25.02.2019 issued with the signature of Dr. Pratibha Roy, Principal-cum-Head of the Department, Genecology, PMCH, Dhanbad as President, Dr. Arup Kumar Verma, Assistant Professor, PMCH, Dhanbad being member and Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak as one of the Doctor in the Medical Board whose document is under scrutiny. This is deprecated by this Court. The letter no. 135 dated 25.02.2019 issued with the signature of Dr. Pratibha Roy, Principal-cum-Head of the Department, Genecology, PMCH, Dhanbad as President, Dr. Arup Kumar Verma, Assistant Professor, PMCH, Dhanbad being member and Dr. Rajeev Nayan, Senior Resident, Department of Radiology also a member and Doctor Swapan Kumar Sarak being tutor, F.M.T. Department, PMCH, Dhanbad, has also been indicated in the Medical Board, which shows that deceased had pregnancy. Under the aforesaid circumstances, petitioners named above are directed to be released on bail in the event of their surrender/arrest within four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 167 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, this Court feels that this order must be communicated to the Health Secretary so as to place it before the Medical Council of India/Board of Directors/body to look into conduct of the Doctors. It is expected that Medical Council of India after taking action will inform this Court within a period of twelve weeks from today." 38. The Respondent authority based upon the aforesaid observation of this Court has issued show cause on 22.05.2020 asking the appellant, as to why the punishment be not inflicted, as enshrined under Rule 14 of the Rule, 2016. 39. The appellant-writ petitioner has submitted its reply admitting the fault, as would be evident from the reply as referred hereinabove. 40. Further, it is evident that the allegation which has been leveled against the appellant-writ petitioner has been admitted by her and the same has been taken into consideration by the authority concerned and as such, by taking the lenient view of imposing minor punishment of censure and withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect, the order of punishment has been passed. 41. The learned Single Judge has considered the fact about the admission of the guilt by the appellant, hence, if in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the impugned order, the same according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 42. 41. The learned Single Judge has considered the fact about the admission of the guilt by the appellant, hence, if in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the impugned order, the same according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 42. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 43. In consequent to dismissal of this appeal, pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.