2026:JHHC:1785 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1410 of 2022 ------

Anil Kumar, son of late Nonu Narayan Singh, at present posted as an ASI, Rajmahal, P.O and P.S. Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj. .. Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Director General-cum-I.G. of Police, Jharkhand, office at Police House, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj. ...Respondent(s)

------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate.

For the State Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV -------

06/22.01.2026: Heard the parties.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the punishment order as contained in memo No. 154 dated 10.1.2021 passed by respondent No. 4, whereby, increment was forfeited for six months and also to set aside the order as contained in memo No. 1410 dated 12.5.2021 passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. The petitioner was appointed in the rank of Constable in the year 1987 and he was promoted to the post of A.S.I. While the petitioner was posted as ASI at Sahibganj, in the year 2019, one Departmental Proceeding No. 40/2020 was initiated against him on the basis of supervision Note of SDPO, Sahibganj in Town P.S. Case No. 250/2019, which is not properly investigated by the petitioner and the investigation of this case is pending since long. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter the charge has been framed against the petitioner. The Departmental Proceeding was conducted. After the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Thereafter, punishment order as contained in Memo No. 154 dated 10.1.2021 was passed against the petitioner. Thereafter the appeal which was been preferred by the petitioner, was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order as contained in Memo No. 1410 dated 12.5.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the the impugned orders are unjust, improper and against the principle of natural justice as in the Departmental Proceeding the witnesses were examined behind the back of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has not given chance to cross-examine the witnesses, which is against the Police Manual Rule 828 read with Appendix- 49. He also submits that the Departmental Proceeding was initiated on the basis

1.

of the report of the SDPO, Sahibganj, but the Conducting Officer has not examined the SDPO, Sahibganj as a witness and no opportunity was given to the delinquent to cross-examine the said witness. He further submits that on the basis of post facto Inquiry Report without examining the complainant, no one can be punished. He lastly submits that in this Departmental Proceeding, the principle of natural justice has been violated and on this basis, the orders impugned should be quashed and set aside. He lastly submits that the punishment is too harsh.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the Departmental Proceeding was rightly initiated against the petitioner. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer, who was appointed, submitted the report, finding the charges proved against the petitioner. He also submits that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. He further submits that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved by oral and documentary evidences, thus the impugned orders of punishment cannot be said to be illegal and unjust as well as against the principle of natural justice. He also submits that the punishment order has also been affirmed by the appellate authority in appeal, preferred by the petitioner. He lastly submits that there is no procedural illegality or irregularity in the entire process.

6. After hearing the parties and after going through the entire record, I find that a Departmental Proceeding being D.P. No. 40/2020 was initiated against the petit