SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1052

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
AJIT KUMAR ROY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY – Respondent
WPC 4715 / 2021



##PAGE1##

(2026:JHHC:2115)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S). No. 4715 of 2021

Ajit Kumar Roy, aged about 59 years, s/o - Sukhdeo Prasad Roy, R/O

New Barganda, P.O., P.S. & District - Giridhih.… … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of

Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. -

Dhurwa, Town and District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.

2. The Secretary, Department of Urban and Housing, Government of

Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. -

Dhurwa, Town and District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.

3. Smt. Vijhya Jadhav, W/O not known to the petitioner, presently

working and posted as Director, Municipal Administration,

Government of Jharkhand, Office situated at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. -

Dhurwa, Town and District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.

4. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, at P.O. & P.S. - Giridih, District -

Giridih, Jharkhand.

5. Deputy Municipal Commissione,r Giridih, at P.O. & P.S. - Giridih,

District - Giridih, Jharkhand.

6. Executive Officer, Bundu Nagar Panchayat, at P.O. & P.S. - Bundu,

District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Respondents

---

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV

For the Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate

---

th

22/28 January 2026

1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. The petitioner by filing this writ petition has challenged the order

dated 20.10.2021 contained in Memo No. 3610 issued by the

Director of Municipal Administration whereby the petitioner has

been dismissed from service and it has been ordered to recover the

salary which has been paid to the petitioner from 2nd September

1

##PAGE2##

(2026:JHHC:2115)

1989 and further it was directed to institute an FIR against the

petitioner for allegedly committing criminal breach of trust,

cheating, giving false statement, tampering with service records

and also for fraudulent practice.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Inspector in Giridih

Municipal Corporation. He joined the serviced on 02.09.1989 and a

charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 01.07.2021 contained

in Memo No. 1581 which has been brought on record at

Annexure - 12, Page No. 64 of the writ petition.

4. From perusal of the charge-sheet, I find that some facts have been

mentioned therein from where one has to decipher the misconduct

of the petitioner. It is made clear that the misconduct has not been

specifically spelt out in the charge-sheet. In the charge-sheet it has

been stated that the petitioner was time and again directed to

produce his certificate in relation to his educational qualification

and date of birth but the petitioner failed to produce the same. It is

alleged that a preliminary enquiry committee was constituted and

the committee found that the service book of the petitioner was

tampered. The aforesaid is the sum and substance of the

departmental charge-sheet.

5. A departmental proceeding against a government servant is

conducted as per the Jharkhand Government Servant

(Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 2016). Rule 14 of the

aforesaid rules prescribes the punishment which can be imposed on

a government servant. Rule 14(i) to (iv) are the minor penalties and

the rests are the major penalties which can be imposed. In this case,

the punishment which has been imposed against the petitioner is a

major penalty.

6. Part VI of the aforesaid rules describes about procedure for

imposing penalties. Rule 17 deals with procedure for imposing

major penalty.

7. Rule 17(1) clearly provides that no order imposing any penalties

specified in Clause - (v) to (xi) of Rule - 14 (Major Penalties), shall

be made without holding an enquiry, as far as may be in the

2

##PAGE3##

(2026:JHHC:2115)

manner provided in the rules. Further, Rule 17(3) clearly provide

that where a disciplinary enquiry is proposed to be held against a

government servant, the Disciplinary Authority will draw up or

cause to be drawn the substance of imputation of a misconduct or

misbehavior as a definite a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top