Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Lawkush Paswan S/o Badarinaran Ram – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 558 of 2023
Decided On : 04-02-2026
For the Appellant : Sheo Kumar Singh
For the Respondent: Mithilesh Singh
Quantum of punishment in disciplinary proceedings is employer's prerogative; courts interfere only if shocking to conscience. No substitution even post criminal acquittal or lesser co-delinquent penalties where misconduct proved serious.
Headnote:(A) Service Jurisprudence - Disciplinary Proceedings - Quantum of Punishment - Dismissal from service for negligence as guard leading to theft of rifles, magazines and bullets - No procedural irregularity or lack of reasoning in enquiry and punishment order as found by Coordinate Bench - Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not absolve departmental misconduct - Liberty to appellate authority for reconsideration of quantum only, which was declined - Quantum assessed by employer; courts cannot substitute view unless shocking to conscience - Punishment proportionate to seriousness despite minor penalties to other guards. (Paras 5, 6, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope limited; cannot re-appraise un-challenged factual findings or assume disciplinary role - Interference only for perversity or disproportionate penalty shocking conscience - Remand appropriate course if interference warranted, not substitution. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, police constable on guard duty at magazine room, held liable for missing arms and ammunition due to dereliction. Departmental proceedings conducted post charge-sheet, opportunity of hearing provided, major penalty of dismissal imposed. Appeals dismissed. Prior writ upheld guilt and proceedings, granted liberty for quantum reconsideration due to criminal final form in favour. Appellate authority affirmed punishment on reconsideration. Second writ challenging all orders seeking quashing and reinstatement.
Findings of Court:
No procedural illegality; guilt and misconduct proved; dismissal not excessive for grave negligence enabling theft.
Issues: Whether punishment orders quashable for procedural flaws or excessiveness; justification for non-reduction post remand; applicability of parity with co-guards; scope of court interference in quantum.
Ratio Decidendi: Proved misconduct's punishment quantum is employer's domain; judicial review confined to conscience-shocking disproportionality; un-challenged prior findings binding, re-assessment judicial impropriety; negligence in arms guard duty justifies dismissal despite criminal acquittal and lesser co-delinquent penalties absent parity.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ seeks quashing of dismissal and reinstatement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. negligence in arms guard duty caused theft. (Para 4) |
| 3. prior court upheld guilt, procedure; remitted quantum. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. courts cannot substitute employer's punishment quantum. (Para 9) |
| 5. dismissal proportionate despite co-delinquents' minor penalties. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. no review of unchallenged prior judgment; writ dismissed. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of ‘Certiorari’ for quashing the Order dated 18.07.2011, bearing Memo No. 1753/Ra. Ka. (Ann- 6), passed by the Superintendent of Police, Palamau (Respondent no.4) and for quashing of Order dated 28.09.2011 bearing Memo No.1753/Go. (Ann-8) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamu Range, Daltonganj (Respondent no.3), and for further quashing the Order dated 04.04.2013 bearing Memo No. 107/D. (Ann-11) passed by the Director General- cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Respondent no.2), whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been inflicted with a major punishment of dismissal from service. And petitioner further prays for quashing of order memo No. 3106 dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure-14) passed by Respondent No. 3 in compliance of order dated 22.11.2021 in WPS Case No. 4380/2013 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan has directed the respondent no. 3, for reconsideration of quantum of punishment within a period of eight weeks from today i.e. 22.11.2021.
b) For issuance of a writ/order/direction in the nature of ‘Mandamus’ commanding upon the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner after quashing the order of dismissal, with all consequential benefits in accordance with law.”
2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.
3. This is the second round of litigation.
4. The expose of the facts involved in this writ petition are as follows:-
4.1. The petitioner is a Police Constable.
4.2. The allegation against the petitioner and several other Police Constables is that while they were guarding at the Magazine Guard Room, Police Centres, 03 SLR Rifles, 02 Magazines and 30 bullets were found missing.
4.3. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 16.06.2009, to which the petitioner replied.
4.4. Since the reply was unsatisfactory, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the said departmental proceeding, opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.
4.5. Thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from service vide impugned order as contained in Memo No.1753/Ra. Ka. dated 18.07.2011 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).
4.6. The petitioner preferred an Appeal against the impugned order dated 18.07.2011. The said Appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.09.2011 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition).
5. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4380 of 2013.
6. The Coordinate Bench of this Court heard the petitioner at length and considered all the aspects of the Departmental Proceeding and thereafter concluded that there is no procedural illegality and irregularity in this case and the impugned order of punishment is a well-reasoned order. It is necessary to quote para-5 of order dated 22.11.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No.4380 of 2013, which is as follows:-
“5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that there is no procedural irregularity in this case and the impugned order of punishment is a well-reasoned order.
It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was made an accused in the criminal case; however, final form was submitted against him.
It is true that acquittal in the criminal case cannot absolve any person in the departmental proceeding; however,
