JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. 1 By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for following reliefs:- (i) “For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), order(s), and/or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Office Order no. 32 dated 19.12.2019, contained in Memo No. 1147 dated 19.12.2019, issued by respondent no.4 as contained in Annexure-22, whereby and where in compliance of order of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court dated 03.09.2019 in W.P.(S) No. 3294 of 2011(Sudhir Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors), a reasoned order has been passed terminating the service of the petitioner, (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s) upon concerned respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Amin Inspector in the district of Hazaribagh with all consequential benefits, upon quashment of order dated 19.12.2019 as contained in Annexure-22. (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s), for quashing letter no. 3097 dated 22.11.2019 issued under the signature of respondent no,5, whereby and hereunder after passing of order in W.P.(S) No. 3294 of 2011( Sudhir Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors), the respondent no. 5 has refused to accept the joining submitted by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-24; (iv) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of second show cause notice issued by respondent no.4 contained in Memo No. 1075 dated 30.11.2019 along with Memo of charges contained in office order no.187 dated 28.12.2006 and order no. 50 dated 10.04.2008, issued by Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle, Hazaribagh as contained in Annexure-23 to the writ application. (v) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s), directing the concerned respondents to immediately and forthwith make payment of salary which is due to the petitioner since 17.4.2008 owing to the fact that the punishment order of the petitioner has been quashed/set aside by the order of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court dated 3.09.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3294 of 2011( Sudhir Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors); ” 2. Heard learned senior counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 26.04.1983, he was appointed on the post of Amin on compassionate ground. On 17.01.1998, vide office order no. 10, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Amin Inspector. State of Jharkhand and Ors); ” 2. Heard learned senior counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 26.04.1983, he was appointed on the post of Amin on compassionate ground. On 17.01.1998, vide office order no. 10, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Amin Inspector. There were no departmental proceedings initiated or complaint filed nor any criminal case lodged against the petitioner during his entire service career. However, after lapse of more than 25 years of service, the petitioner while being posted at Hazaribagh West, started getting harassed at the instance of the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle. The petitioner was transferred to the post of Amin Inspector, Chatra North Division vide office order no. 80 dated 14.06.2005, even though there was no sanctioned post of Amin Inspector. The petitioner joined the post but was paid no salary as the said post was not sanctioned. The petitioner filed several representations but no heed was paid. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Giridih Forest and gave his joining on 02.06.2006. Subsequently, the Conservator of Forest, Santhal Pargana Division, Deoghar became the controlling authority and the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle had no control over the petitioner. On 10.01.2007, vide letter no 138 along with copy of the office order no. 187 dated 28.12.2006 issued under the signature of the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Later on, another office order no 46 contained in Memo No. 920 dated 13.03.2007 was issued to the petitioner by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle, wherein the petitioner was put under suspension. The said order was communicated to the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh and further to Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Dumka vide letter no. 601 dated 15.03.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ application vide W.P.(S) No. 4162 of 2007 for quashing of the office order dated 28.12.2006 and 13.03.2007 respectively and for direction upon the respondents for payment of arrears of salary from 18.06.2005 to 13.10.2005. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was issued another office order no. 32 contained in Memo No. 490 dated 17.04.2008 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Santhal Pargana Circle, Deoghar wherein, he was suspended in contemplation of the departmental proceeding. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was issued another office order no. 32 contained in Memo No. 490 dated 17.04.2008 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Santhal Pargana Circle, Deoghar wherein, he was suspended in contemplation of the departmental proceeding. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet contained in office order no. 50 contained in Memo No. 1331 dated 10.04.2008 by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle. The enquiry officer did not find the petitioner guilty of the second charge in both the proceedings and rest 3-6 charges were not dealt with, however, the petitioner was dismissed from service and a decision was taken to recover an amount of Rs. 557.93 Lakhs from him vide office order No. 122 contained in Memo No, 2070 dated 20.09.2009 issued by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh. 4. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner argued that since the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle was no more the Controlling and Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, he had no authority to initiate the departmental proceeding and the office order no. 187 dated 28.12.2006 was issued without the approval of the competent authority. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner on 05.03.2007, in reply to the letter no 138 dated 10.01.2007, requested for supply of the documents in order to file his show cause reply, but all the documents were not furnished to him. The authorities suspending the petitioner in contemplation of the departmental proceeding were not the competent authority for issuing such order. The Presenting Officer so appointed was biased against the petitioner, thus the petitioner raised objection. The counsel submitted that on 04.07.1997 vide letter contained in Memo No. 1547, the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, informed the Principal Chief Conservator that the petitioner was found innocent and absolved the petitioner of the charges of manipulating the maps and for releasing the land. The Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle, vide letter contained in Memo No. 1421 dated 17.06.1997 absolved the petitioner of the said charges. It is contended that the demarcation of maps had been carried out much before the joining of the petitioner in the said department. There was no evidence as to who had actually made the overwriting in the said forest map for which the petitioner had been dismissed from service. It is contended that the demarcation of maps had been carried out much before the joining of the petitioner in the said department. There was no evidence as to who had actually made the overwriting in the said forest map for which the petitioner had been dismissed from service. The maps were deposited in the District record Room prior to 1965 and the same had not been amended as per the Forest Land. There is no evidence in whose favour the forest lands were settled nor any names of villagers had been disclosed. There were several requests made to the Forest Settlement Officer to send the forest maps of demarcated land but the same was not sent. There was no evidence on the quantum of loss suffered by the government for which the order to recover Rs. 557.93 Lakhs from the petitioner was passed. The departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected after a lapse of one and a half year by office order no. 04 contained in Memo No. 113 dated 09.04.2011. Learned senior counsel further submitted that thereafter, the petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No. 3294 of 2011 for quashing of the order dated 09.04.2011 and praying to be reinstated in service. The Hon’ble Court held that the impugned order was not passed by the competent authority and that it was the same authority who earlier passed the suspension order, had passed the punishment order. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court quashed the impugned order and remitted back the matter to the respondent authorities to pass a fresh order within a period of six weeks. Learned senior counsel submitted that no effect was given to the order even after the petitioner made representations. He submitted that two parallel office orders had been passed by the department, one is speaking order which is in compliance to order passed in W.P.(S) No. 3294 of 2011 whereby the services of the petitioner had been terminated and the same respondent- department had issued second show cause notice vide letter no 1075 dated 30.11.2019. The issuance of second show cause notice is illegal to the extent that there had been no first show cause and it is absolutely clear that the order passed is not by a competent authority. By order of this Hon’ble Court, the termination order had been set aside. The issuance of second show cause notice is illegal to the extent that there had been no first show cause and it is absolutely clear that the order passed is not by a competent authority. By order of this Hon’ble Court, the termination order had been set aside. The Conservator of Forest is not the competent authority neither the disciplinary authority to pass the order of suspension and termination. The present show cause issued by the Conservator of Forest, Giridih is not tenable and had been passed in violation of Rules notified by the Revenue & Land Reforms Department vide notification no. 3/Amin Rules-126/120-3683 RA dated 25.11.2013. Once the termination order has been quashed, a fresh termination order cannot be allowed to be passed, based on older documents. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents, in reply, submitted that there was no illegality committed while passing the order of suspension and thereafter termination. Serious charges of tampering with the maps and other records of the Forest Department to give benefit to several persons, thereby causing loss to the Government had been levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner has tried to mislead the Hon’ble Court by interpreting the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 3294 of 2011 as per his whims and fancies. The order in the aforesaid matter only mentioned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law without entering into the method of enquiry and thus, the respondents had passed a fresh order terminating the services of the petitioner. On basis of written complaint show cause notices had been issued to the petitioner vide letter no-3227 dated 09.08.1996 and vide letter no- 584 dated 21.03.1997. There is no illegality in the procedure of issuing two different charge sheets. The petitioner has produced no evidence in support of the allegations against the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh. The petitioner also cannot take the plea that some other person had been acquitted in similar allegation as the post they were holding was different and therefore, the responsibilities and the duties were also different. On perusal of the report on the enquiry of forest map, it was found that 29.17 acres of forest land had been shown out of the forest area by the petitioner while he was posted as Amin Inspector. The loss caused to the State Government was to the tune of Rs. On perusal of the report on the enquiry of forest map, it was found that 29.17 acres of forest land had been shown out of the forest area by the petitioner while he was posted as Amin Inspector. The loss caused to the State Government was to the tune of Rs. 91,93,000/- for 15.85 hectare of forest land as per the first inquiry report. In the second charge sheet, the total land involved was approximately 80 hectares and the total amount of loss was at Rs. 5,71,47,400/- approximately Rs. 5.71 crores. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no scope of accepting the joining submitted by the petitioner after the termination order had been passed afresh. There was no irregularity in conducting the departmental proceeding and the Petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity of hearing before passing of the order of punishment. 6. This writ petition can very well be disposed of considering the issue of the non-examination of witnesses and not proving the documents by the witnesses during the enquiry proceeding. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 , has laid down the law by holding that the departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding and the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. It is the duty of the Enquiry Officer to arrive at the finding of guilt against the delinquent officer based on evidence which is duly collected. If the Enquiry Officer wants to get the charge proved based on some documents, those documents must be proved by some witnesses. Though, the Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable so far as departmental proceeding is concerned but when a document needs to be looked into, it has to be proved by an oral evidence. Witnesses must be examined to prove the said documents. Merely tendering of the document and not proving the contents thereof is not sufficient to prove the charge in a departmental proceeding. The document itself cannot be treated to be an evidence until and unless the same is proved. It is necessary to quote para-14 of the judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), which reads as hereunder:- “ 14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The document itself cannot be treated to be an evidence until and unless the same is proved. It is necessary to quote para-14 of the judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), which reads as hereunder:- “ 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. The said proposition has been reiterated recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 (para-17). "17. 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." 8. After going through the record, I find that there are six charges against the delinquent. From the enquiry report, I find that the main charge against the delinquent is of causing loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs.91.93 lacs by showing 29.17 acres of actual forest land, out of the perview of forest. From the enquiry report, I find that not a single witness has been examined to substantiate the aforesaid fact. From the enquiry report, I find that the main charge against the delinquent is of causing loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs.91.93 lacs by showing 29.17 acres of actual forest land, out of the perview of forest. From the enquiry report, I find that not a single witness has been examined to substantiate the aforesaid fact. So far as charge No.2 is concerned, the enquiry officer himself admits that no evidence can be collected to substantiate the aforesaid charge. Regarding charge No.3 to 6 which as per the enquiry officer are the subsidiaries of charge Nos.1 and 2, I find that not a single witness has been examined to substantiate the aforesaid charges. Thus, I find that the charges have not been proved by any witness. There is lack of evidence in support of the charges. Without any evidence, the charges cannot be said to be proved. Further, there is nothing to suggest as to how the quantum of loss has been arrived at. The loss so assessed is also hypothetical, which cannot withstand the test of reasonableness. 9. Considering what has been held above, I find that this case in hand is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) and Satyendra Singh (supra) , as there is irregularity committed by the enquiry officer in arriving at the finding of guilt of the delinquent as also by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. 10. The impugned orders as contained in Memo No. 1147 dated 19.12.2019, letter no.3097 dated 22.11.2019 and other consequential orders, if any, are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. The period which he remained out of service will be counted for all purpose for grant of his post retiral benefits, and there will be continuity of service of the petitioner. He is entitled to get all the consequential benefits on reinstatement. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed 12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.