JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent-State. 2. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of punishment as contained in Memo No.599 dated 10.09.2016 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), whereby the Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty upon the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to pay and release the increments and the difference of salary for the period of suspension. 3. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 as a Revenue Karamchari. While posted in Hussainabad Block of Palamu District, he was put under suspension w.e.f. 25.09.2004. After revocation of his suspension, a Memo of Charge was served upon the petitioner being Memo No.523 dated 29.10.2005 and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The allegations in the charge-sheet against the petitioner are that he had left the Headquarter without prior leave/permission; not performing his duty properly; was not responsible and demanded illegal gratification for effecting mutation, he failed to identify the families who were below the poverty line and lastly he was negligent in preparing the voter list. 4. The petitioner filed reply to the charges and denied all the allegations levelled against him. 5. Vide order as contained in Memo No.245 dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), the petitioner was punished with imposition of censure, stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and it was further decided that for the suspension period, the petitioner will be entitled only for the subsistence allowance. 6. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of punishment being W.P. (S) No. 571 of 2013 (Satyendra Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.). A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.09.2013 quashed the order of penalty and the Appellate order and directed the respondents to decide the matter afresh. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Disciplinary Authority and the impugned order (Annexure-5) was passed, whereby the Authority passed similar punishment which was earlier quashed and set aside. The petitioner thus, approached this Court. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that in the meantime, the petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 31.01.2025. 8. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Disciplinary Authority and the impugned order (Annexure-5) was passed, whereby the Authority passed similar punishment which was earlier quashed and set aside. The petitioner thus, approached this Court. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that in the meantime, the petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 31.01.2025. 8. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the respondents without applying their mind and without complying with the order of learned Single Judge, again passed the similar order which was already set aside. It is his contention that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in a most improper manner as none of the charges were proved by cogent and reliable evidence. He submits that four charges were found to be proved but if the charges are seen properly, there would be only one conclusion that the same are vague without there being any specific allegation against the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel representing the respondent-State submits that the petitioner was negligent in his work and in fact did not prepare the voter list properly. He further submits that an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order was passed. 10. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the charge-sheet and the enquiry report. 11. From the charge-sheet, I find that there were five charges against the petitioner, which are as follows:- i. Without sanctioning of the leave, the petitioner has consistently left the Headquarters; in the weekly meeting, he was absent and his explanation was not on the issue. ii. He has failed to handover the charge of the revenue records. iii. Demanded Rs.800/- as illegal gratification from one Alamgir Ansari, in relation to collection of revenue. iv. Did not prepare nor identify the Below Poverty Line (BPL) level families. v. In respect of modification and updation of the voter list, he had not performed his work properly and responsibly in preparing the same in respect of Part No. 74 to 77. 12. From the enquiry report, I find that the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner failed to establish that the allegations are not correct, thus, the Enquiry Officer arrived at a conclusion that the charge Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 against the petitioner were proved, whereas charge No.3 stands not proved. 13. A Departmental Proceeding is quasi judicial in nature. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. 13. A Departmental Proceeding is quasi judicial in nature. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges levelled against a delinquent employee must be found to have been proved. To come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the delinquent employee is proved, it is the duty of the Enquiry Officer to arrive at the said finding after taking into consideration the material which has been brought on record by the parties and the evidence which has been collected. Further, a Departmental Enquiry Officer is an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the Department or the Disciplinary Authority. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department. Even in absence of the delinquent employee, it is the duty of the Enquiry Officer to perform his duty to find out independently as to whether the charge levelled against the delinquent is proved or not. If the case of the department is based on some documents, those documents also need to be proved. Some witnesses need to be produced and examined to prove the documents relied by the Department. Though, strictly the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable in a Departmental Proceeding but someone must prove the documents and present the same. A document which is not proved by oral evidence could not be taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion that the charge against a delinquent employee is proved. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 570, in para-14, has held 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. 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.” Further, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the documents which were produced before the Enquiry Officer needs to be proved. Para-28 of the said judgment reads as hereunder:- “ 28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/ Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.” 15. Further, this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5205 of 2018 (Arun Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. Roop Singh Negi (supra) and Saroj Kumar Sinha (Supra), has allowed the writ petition vide order dated 27.09.2022 and quashed the entire enquiry report, order of punishment as well as the appellate order. 16. While going through the enquiry report and the other documents related to this case, I find that not even single witness has been produced or examined by the department to prove the charge which has been levelled against the petitioner. Non- examination of the witnesses where some documents are to be proved will result in violation of principles of natural justice which means that no reasonable opportunity has been given to the delinquent to defend his or her case. Charge Nos.1 and 2 are also vague. Non- examination of the witnesses where some documents are to be proved will result in violation of principles of natural justice which means that no reasonable opportunity has been given to the delinquent to defend his or her case. Charge Nos.1 and 2 are also vague. The Department has not alleged as to when the petitioner had handed over the revenue records and what was the delay. How he has not worked with responsibility while preparing the voter list in respect of Part Nos.74 to 77 has also not been mentioned. In absence of any documents and the witnesses in the case in hand, I am of the opinion that it was not proper for the Enquiry Officer to come to the conclusion that the allegation against the petitioner stands proved. The judgments referred above are squarely applicable in this case. 17. Considering the aforesaid judgments and relating them to the facts of this case, I am inclined to allow this writ petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order of punishment as contained in Memo No. 599 dated 10.09.2016 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). The petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits including the monetary benefits arising out of same, which shall be paid to him. 18. In view of the above observation, this writ petition stands allowed.