Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Ramij Raja, Son Of Late Md. Mahbub Alam - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No.2048 of 2023
Decided On : 11-02-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate, Ms. Saba Ali, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ac To Ga-V, Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, Ac To Ga-V
Courts interfere with disciplinary punishment quantum only if shockingly disproportionate to proved misconduct; prior punished act not fresh charge.
Headnote:(A) Disciplinary Proceedings - Quantum of punishment - When charge of misconduct proved, quantum is domain of disciplinary authorities; courts cannot substitute but limited judicial review available if penalty shockingly disproportionate or shocking to conscience of court. (Paras 8, 8.1)
(B) Charges - Misconduct for which employee already punished cannot constitute fresh specific charge; at best, considered for determining quantum. (Para 7.1)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner constable charged in departmental proceedings with fraud by pretending ownership of motorcycle, taking advance money without delivering vehicle, and prior misappropriation of mess funds on credit despite availability of funds. Enquiry found charges proved; dismissed from service; appellate, revisional and mercy petitions dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Second charge invalid as prior punished misconduct; first charge proved but dismissal harsh and disproportionate. Punishment order and consequent orders set aside; remanded to disciplinary authority for fresh decision on quantum within six weeks after hearing petitioner.
Issues: Vagueness and repetition of charges; proportionality of dismissal to proved misconduct of fraudulent vehicle sale attempt.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts refrain from deciding quantum unless punishment shocks conscience; here, disproportionate to proved charge of taking advance for non-owned vehicle.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition quashing dismissal orders heard. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on vague charges and fair proceedings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. facts of fraud and misappropriation charges proved. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of :-
(i) Order of punishment as contained in Memo No.290 dated 22.11.2017 passed in Departmental Proceeding No.14/2014 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), whereby service of the petitioner was dismissed.
(ii) Appellate Order as contained in Memo No.502 dated 25.10.2018 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, affirming the punishment order.
(iii) Revisional Order as contained in Memo No.256 dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), whereby the ‘Memorial Revision Petition’ preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Revisional Authority.
(iv) Order as contained in Memo No.4429/ Ranchi, dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), whereby ‘Mercy Appeal’ preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
1.1. The petitioner further claims reinstatement in service, seniority along with all other consequential benefits and payment of full wages, arrears of salary, along with statutory as well as penal interest.
2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.
3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner are vague. He submits that there are two charges against the petitioner in which Charge No.2 is a mere repetition of the previous charge framed against the petitioner vide Memo No.329 dated 30.08.2014 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), for which the petitioner had already been punished. So far as Charge No.1 is concerned, he refuted the same while referring to Letters dated 30.06.2016, 21.11.2017 and Affidavit dated 25.11.2017 [Annexure-6 (Series) to this writ petition], furnished by Golu Kumar, wherein he stated that he knew Ramij Raja (petitioner herein) since before and he has returned his money, which he took as a loan, but due to delay in repayment of his money, though it was bonafide, he with an apprehension of losing money, filed the complaint.
4. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the order of punishment does not warrant any interference, as the petitioner was constantly committing forgery. He submits that on earlier occasion also, the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally for committing forgery and misappropriating money from others for his personal gain. He submits that in the present Departmental Proceeding, the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing. He lastly submits that the Departmental Proceeding was conducted in a fair manner and the petitioner was rightly punished for the proved misconduct.
5. The expose of the facts involved in this writ petition is as follows:-
5.1. The petitioner is a Constable.
5.2. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), wherein it was alleged that while posted at Police Headquarters, he has committed gross indiscipline, dereliction of duty and fraud.
5.3. First charge against the petitioner is that he flouted the Government Orders and Rules by taking a motorcycle from another person and by pretending himself to be the owner of the said motorcycle, tending to sell it to one Golu Kumar, took Rs.53,000/-, from him and misappropriated the same.
5.4. Second charge is that on previous occasion also, the petitioner in the capacity of Mess-Incharge, while undergoing C.I.A.T. Training at Musabani, Jamshedpur, purchased materials of Mess for a sum of Rs.30,915/-, from one Ashok Kumar Agarwal, from his grocery shop on credit and despite there being adequate funds in the coffers, he did not pay the same and misappropriated it for his personal gain.
5.5. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally. The Enquir
