IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 647 of 2022 -----

HEMANT KUMAR SINGH, son of Sri Byasdeo Singh, resident of Shivsagar, Domchanch, P.O. & P.S. Domchanch, District Koderma (Jharkhand).

....Petitioner(s).

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jailand Disaster Management, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

3. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Police Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi, P.O; and P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi

5. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S.

Kotwali, District Ranchi.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District Giridih.

… Respondent(s).

------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV …......

14/ 20.01.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

i. For quashing of Memo No.7749 dated 24.06.2020 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service for absent of 332 days from sanctioned leave, the Disciplinary Authority has not given finding that it is willful absence.

ii. For quashing of order dated 02.11.2020 whereby the Respondent No.4 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner without going through the facts and laws submitted by the petitioner and subsequently quashing of Memo No.219 ‘dated 06.12.2021 whereby the memorial filed by the petitioner before Director General of Police, Jharkhand was also dismissed.

iii. For direction upon the respondents after quashing the Memo No.

7749 dated 24.06.2020 and subsequent order, respondents should pay consequential benefit to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Jharkhand Police Force in the year 2005 and was initially posted at Ranchi. The petitioner was granted sanctioned leave for seven days with effect from 17.03.2012.After the expiry of the sanctioned leave, the petitioner could not rejoin duty. He rejoined his duty on 20.02.2013. A charge memo bearing Memo No.7727 dated 13.08.2013 was issued to the petitioner alleging that he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for 332 days beyond the sanctioned leave, thus a Departmental Proceeding was initiated. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted a reply dated 29.05.2020, again denying the allegation. The Disciplinary Authority on 24.06.2020 passed an order of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 14.07.2020 which was dismissed by order dated 02.11.2020. The petitioner thereafter filed a memorial dated 15.02.2021 which was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner could not rejoin duty due to serious medical illness. During this period, he sent applications for extension of leave through registered post along with medical certificates. He further submits that the petitioner was also under custody from 04.12.2012 to 23.01.2013, which was beyond his control which prevented him from joining duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that absence from duty cannot be treated as misconduct unless it is proved to be willful. In the present case, this essential requirement has been completely ignored. He also submits that the Enquiry Officer did not verify the medical certificates and ignored the defence taken by the petitioner. He further submits that the appeal was dismissed withou