ORDER : Ananda Sen, J. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) quashing the order dated 24/06/2017, issued vide memo No.2793 by the Superintendant of Police, Deoghar, whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service. ii. Be further pleased to quash the appellate order dated 06/03/2019 issued vide memo No.642 by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka, whereby the order of dismissal dated 24/06/2017 passed by the Superintendant of Police, Deoghar has been affirmed. iii. Be further pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits, including back wages. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable (Constable No. 218) in the Jharkhand Police in the year 2010. While being posted at Deoghar, the petitioner was put under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar vide memo No.1386 dated 27.05.2016, on the basis of information of the Officer-in-Charge, Town Police Station, that the Petitioner along with Tinku Kumar, Sumit Kumar Das and the Animal Smuggler, were giving information about the movement of Police and were providing protection to the vehicle of the animal traffickers in safely going out of Deoghar City and in lieu thereof they were charging Rs.1000/- per vehicle. Subsequently, vide memo No.1746 dated 02.07.2016 (District Order No.2240/2016 dated 29.06.2016), the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar revoked the suspension of the petitioner. Memo of charge under memo No.2122 dated 16.08.2016 was issued to the petitioner, alleging therein as aforesaid. It was also mentioned that in enquiry of the Inspector-cum-Officer in Charge, it had come that the petitioner was also involved. Petitioner was asked to submit his show cause reply within a week. Petitioner on 27.10.2016, had submitted his reply, wherein he categorically denied each of the charges leveled against him and he also prayed to drop the charges and to close the proceeding against him. Thereafter a Departmental Proceeding No.25/16 was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, on 25.05.2017 had submitted the enquiry report, wherein he found the charges against the petitioner as proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide memo No.2793 dated 24.06.2017 communicated the final order vide D.O. No.1485/17 passed in the Departmental Proceeding No.25/16, whereby and whereunder punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, on 25.05.2017 had submitted the enquiry report, wherein he found the charges against the petitioner as proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide memo No.2793 dated 24.06.2017 communicated the final order vide D.O. No.1485/17 passed in the Departmental Proceeding No.25/16, whereby and whereunder punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e., Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dumka Region, Dumka. The Appellate Authority vide order No.566/19 communicated through Memo No.642 dated 06.03.2019 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Challenging the order of dismissal as also the appellate order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the departmental enquiry only three witnesses were examined, out of whom two witnesses were formal witnesses whereas the other witness was the Officer, who had given information vide memo No.1593/2016 dated 17.05.2016 to the Superintendent of Police about the petitioner and others. He argued that in the departmental proceeding, nothing had surfaced to substantiate the charge against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has heavily relied on Memo No.1593/2016 dated 17.05.2016 whereas neither the so called Md. Sheru nor any truck driver was examined to substantiate the allegations nor any evidence like CDR of the calls of the petitioner has been brought on record to substantiate that the petitioner had ever talked to Md. Sheru. Learned counsel argued that the charge itself is vague inasmuch nothing was mentioned in the charge nor anything has come in evidence as to on which date, at what time, from whom or from which vehicle the alleged money was taken. He argued that on the basis of such vague charge, merely relying on the complaint made by an Officer without being specific and when the charge itself was not proved, the punishment imposed on the petitioner of dismissal from service is absolutely bad and untenable in the eyes of law. He argued that even the Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that there was nothing on record nor there was any evidence to prove the charge against the petitioner in the Departmental Enquiry, as such the findings of the Enquiry Officer itself were bad and untenable and holding to the contrary and rejecting the appeal of the petitioner was equally bad and untenable. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the reply to the show cause submitted by the petitioner was found dissatisfactory and hence, the Superintendent of Police considering the findings of the enquiry officer dismissed the petitioner from service. The counsel contended that the petitioner’s involvement with the animal traffickers is an act of serious misconduct, indiscipline and doubtful integrity, which, definitely attracts major punishment and accordingly, the petitioner has rightly been dismissed from services. He further argued that considering the serious nature of allegations having been proved as has been found by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report, the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 5. Before proceeding to evaluate the arguments of the parties in the light of the facts of the case, it is necessary to refer to some of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein guidelines have been framed to deal with the cases of Departmental Proceedings and the punishments imposed on the delinquents in such Departmental Proceedings. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 has emphasized on the importance of evidence evaluation and the principle of natural justice and has observed that a decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. Though, the provisions of the Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. The document itself cannot be an evidence until and unless the same is proved. At paragraph 14 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed 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. 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.” Similarly, in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat , (2013) 4 SCC 301 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of judicial review and emphasized the importance for evidence on record. At paragraph 22 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: - “22. It is settled legal proposition that judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merits by re-appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review, is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence. The adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the Court in writ proceedings. (Vide State of T.N. v. S. Subramaniam [ (1996) 7 SCC 509 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 627 : (1996) 33 ATC 317 : AIR 1996 SC 1232 ] , R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab [ (1999) 8 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1424] and Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan [ (2006) 2 SCC 373 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 316 : AIR 2006 SC 1214 ] )” In a very recent judgment in the case of Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while reiterating the above proposition, has held at paragraph 17 thereof as under: “17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi15 and Nirmala J. Jhala16, we are of the firm view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.” 7. In this case, when I go through the chargesheet, I find that the same is absolutely vague. It only states that this petitioner, in connivance with others used to accept Rs.1000/- per vehicle and was helping the animal traffickers and were giving free thoroughfare to their vehicles through which they were carrying trafficked animals. There is no instance at all mentioned nor even the vehicle number or any material is there to suggest as to when the petitioner committed the said offence and who are the other persons and whom the petitioner had helped. Further, I find that the only document, which has been relied upon is a report of the Officer-in-Charge, Deoghar Police Station being memo No.1593/16. The said memo states that one Constable 694 Tinku Kumar was in touch with one Md. Sheru who is engaged in illegal trading of animals and he regularly gives him information about movement of police, thus, he shoulders the responsibility of safe exit of the vehicles carrying animals outside city of Deoghar. In lieu thereof, Md. Sheru used to pay Rs.2,000/- to 5,000/- per vehicle. It has also been alleged that he has also engaged some personnel of Vita and Tiger Mobile on allurement of money for gathering information about movement of officers and passes such information to the animal traffickers and he is involved in the work of easy exit of the vehicles carrying animals for about two months. It has further been alleged that upon inquiring from Constable 694 Tinku Kumar, Constable 218 Ahmed Rasheed, Constable 832 Sumit Das, they disclosed that Constable 694 Tinku Kumar used to collect money from vehicles carrying animals and they used to count the vehicles. It has further been alleged that upon inquiring from Constable 694 Tinku Kumar, Constable 218 Ahmed Rasheed, Constable 832 Sumit Das, they disclosed that Constable 694 Tinku Kumar used to collect money from vehicles carrying animals and they used to count the vehicles. He also used to give some money to the personnel deputed in 3 – 4 – 5 Vita and Tiger Mobile. It has also been stated that Tinku Kumar on enquiry had admitted that he collects Rs.1000/- per vehicle for easy exit of the vehicles carrying animals before the Inspector of Police, Sub Divisional Police Officer. 8. The facts mentioned in the said memo No.1593 dated 17.05.2016, which is the only piece of evidence in the Departmental Proceeding, have not been proved through any witness nor the alleged Md. Sheru or driver of any of the vehicles, whom the petitioner is alleged to have helped in moving out of the Deoghar City, have been examined as witnesses in course of the Departmental Proceeding. Such non-examination of plausible witnesses in the Departmental Proceeding not only infringed the right of the petitioner from cross-examining them, but it also vitiates the entire Departmental Proceeding inasmuch as it is well settled law that the contents of a documentary evidence in a Departmental Proceeding must be proved by oral evidence through witnesses. Moreover, the allegations in the said memo No.1593 dated 17.05.2016 revolve around the acts of one Constable 694 Tinku Kumar and nothing specific has been stated against the petitioner. 9. In view of above factual and legal position, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. Order dated 24/06/2017, issued vide memo No.2793 by the Superintendant of Police, Deoghar, whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service, is hereby set aside. Consequentially, the appellate order dated 06.03.2019 issued vide memo No.642 is also hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential benefits. 10. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.