The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that disciplinary action against public servants cannot rest on suspicion or procedural assumptions in the absence of statutory mandates or concrete evidence. In a significant ruling, the Court quashed a punishment order against a police officer for alleged irregularities in recording a confessional statement, emphasizing that due process and evidentiary rigor are non-negotiable in service jurisprudence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Prashant Prasad, a Sub-Inspector in the Jharkhand Police, was subjected to a departmental inquiry following allegations related to the recording and handling of a confessional statement in connection with Case No. 30 of 2023 at Balumath (Latehar) Police Station. The inquiry culminated in a punishment order withholding one annual increment, equivalent to two black marks, and this decision was upheld on appeal.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector on 06.08.2018 and was posted as Sub-Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Chhatarpur Police Station, District Palamau.
- The alleged incident occurred on 31.05.2023, when the confessional statement of accused Aman Sao was recorded in connection with a criminal case.
- The Charge Memo dated 11.11.2023 alleged five specific misconducts:
- Failure to record the confessional statement via video mode.
- Leakage of the statement to the media.
- Inclusion of the name of political leader Ramesh Singh in the statement.
- Tarnishing Ramesh Singh’s image at the behest of contractor Kripa Shankar Singh.
- Recording the statement without video to deliberately implicate Ramesh Singh.
- The petitioner had an unblemished service record prior to the inquiry.
- No documentary or testimonial evidence linked the petitioner to the alleged media leak or to the contractor Kripa Shankar Singh.
- The inquiry report did not establish any motive, intent, or direct involvement of the petitioner in the inclusion of Ramesh Singh’s name.
Procedural History
- 31.05.2023: Confessional statement of Aman Sao recorded.
- 11.11.2023: Charge Memo issued by Superintendent of Police, CTC, Swaspur, Musabani.
- 01.09.2025: Disciplinary Authority issued punishment order (Memo No. 326) withholding one annual increment.
- 11.01.2026: Appellate Authority (Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kolhan Division) dismissed the petitioner’s appeal (Memo No. 49).
- 16.04.2026: Hearing held before the Jharkhand High Court.
- 29.04.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of both the punishment order dated 01.09.2025 and the appellate order dated 11.01.2026, along with restoration of his service benefits and cancellation of the black marks.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a departmental punishment for alleged procedural lapses in recording a confessional statement can be sustained in the absence of any statutory mandate requiring video recording at the time of the incident, and where no evidence links the officer to the alleged leak or malafide intent.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, argued that at the time of recording the confessional statement on 31.05.2023, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were in force, neither of which mandated audio-video recording of confessions. He further contended that the inquiry report contained no evidence connecting the petitioner to the media leak, the inclusion of Ramesh Singh’s name, or any collusion with Kripa Shankar Singh. He relied on United Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattarcharjee to assert that punishment without evidence is a violation of natural justice and subject to judicial review under Article 226.
For the Respondent
Mr. Rakesh Roy, AC to GA-III, argued that the disciplinary authority had considered the entire record and found the petitioner’s explanation unsatisfactory. He submitted that the punishment was proportionate and that the appellate authority had rightly upheld it, emphasizing the need for discipline within the police force.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the legal framework applicable at the time of the incident. It noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.), which mandates audio-video recording of confessions under Sections 105, 180, and 183, came into force only on 01.07.2024 - over a year after the statement was recorded on 31.05.2023. Therefore, the petitioner could not be held liable for non-compliance with a law that did not exist at the time of the act.
"There is no mandate in the Cr.P.C. and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the confessional statement of the accused has to be recorded through video mode and therefore, so far as the charges No. 1 and 5... the same is not established against the petitioner."
Regarding the allegations of media leakage and political targeting, the Court observed that the inquiry report was devoid of any material evidence - no witness testimony, no digital trail, no communication records, and no admission by the petitioner. The findings were based on suspicion, which the Court held is legally insufficient.
"It is well established that suspicion, howsoever strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof."
The Court further emphasized that the petitioner’s unblemished service record and the absence of any motive or corroborative evidence rendered the punishment arbitrary and perverse. Citing United Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattarcharjee, the Court reiterated that judicial review under Article 226 is warranted where departmental proceedings are based on no evidence.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Jharkhand High Court quashed both the punishment order dated 01.09.2025 and the appellate order dated 11.01.2026. The respondents were directed to restore all consequential benefits to the petitioner, including the withheld increment and cancellation of two black marks, within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Suspicion Alone Cannot Justify Punishment
- Practitioners must challenge departmental orders where findings are based on conjecture, not evidence.
- The burden of proof lies squarely on the disciplinary authority; mere allegations without corroboration are legally untenable.
Statutory Compliance Must Be Assessed Retroactively
- Officers cannot be penalized for violating laws that came into force after the alleged act.
- When assessing procedural lapses, the applicable law at the time of the incident governs liability - not subsequent statutory changes.
Judicial Review Is a Remedy for Evidentiary Failures
-
Where departmental inquiries lack material evidence, writ petitions under Article 226 are not only maintainable but necessary to prevent abuse of power.
-
Unblemished service records, when coupled with evidentiary voids, strengthen the case for quashing punitive orders.
-
Always demand a copy of the inquiry report and scrutinize it for evidentiary gaps.
-
Cite United Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattarcharjee to invoke judicial review in cases of no evidence.
-
Argue that post-facto statutory changes cannot be weaponized against prior conduct.
