IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 3862 of 2019 -------

Sanjay Kumar, Ex-Constable No. 669 JAP-5, Deoghar, aged 46 years, son of Sri Mukhdev Singh, resident of village-Adarshnagar, P.O. & P.S. Tatislve, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

……….. Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.

Doranda, District Ranchi.

3. The Commandant, JAP-5, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar.

4. Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar.

5. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.

Deoghar, District Deoghar. ……….. Respondents ----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG-III ----

05/ 08.01.2026 The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:

“a. For quashing and setting aside the Office order dated 24.1.2018 (Annexure-8) passed by the Commandant, JAP-5, Deoghar (respondent no. 3) in JAP-5, Deoghar Departmental Proceeding No. 25/2017 whereby and where under the petitioner being a Constable has been dismissed from the service in a highhanded and illegal manner.

b. For quashing and setting aside the Office order contained in Memo No. 198/D dated 26.06.2018 (Annexure 10) wherein the respondent no. 2 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

c. For directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner from 24.01.2018 with all consequential and monetary benefits, and d. Further direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner continuously in service from the alleged date of his dismissal from the service.”

2. Briefly stated, a departmental proceeding was initiated against this petitioner for which charge-sheet was issued (Annexure-3) and after the enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer, enquiry report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority holding the charge to be proved and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority after going through the enquiry report and the records, imposed the punishment of dismissal.

3. Amongst the other grounds on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this is a peculiar case where the Inquiry Officer himself assumed the charge of Presenting Officer and in essence, he became prosecutor apart from Umpire for which he was duly appointed. In other words, in the instant case, there was no Presenting Officer, who has been appointed. He further draws attention of the Court towards Annexure-3, which is charge-sheet and the enquiry report, which is Annexure-5 and submits that nowhere there is a reference of Presenting Officer and even the Inquiry Officer has not given any indication that Presenting Officer has been appointed.

4. He further submits that normally in the charge-sheet itself, the name of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer are indicated and if not, a letter with regard to appointment of Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer is issued to the delinquent. However, in the instant case; neither a separate letter with regard to appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer has been issued and/or served to the petitioner, nor there is any reference of the Presenting Officer; as such, it is against the settled principle of service jurisprudence that Inquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently, cannot act as a Prosecutor. As such, on this score alone, the impugned order of punishment is vitiated.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that there is no document on record in order to rebut the aforesaid contention. However, relying upon the counter-affidavit, he submits that the charge was very grave and proper evidence was led and several witnesses were examined; as such, only on the question that there was no Presenting Officer, the entire proceeding cannot be held to be vitiated.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record; without going into