Jharkhand High Court
Amal Ajeet Kumar Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand; on 3 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
(Against the order dated 10th April 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in WP(S) No. 2719 of 2016)
LPA No. 348 of 2018
------
Amal Ajeet Kumar Soren, son of late G.G.Soren, resident of village
Cantonment, Mohalla Hurhurwa, PO & PS Sadar, District Hazaribagh
...... Writ Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1 The State of Jharkhand;
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand having its office at
Project Building, PO & PS Dhurwa,District Ranchi;
3. Director General-cum- Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand having its
office at Police Headquarters PO & PS Dhurwa,District Ranchi;
4. Additional Director General of Police, Special Branch having its office at
Police Headquarters, PO & PS Dhurwa,District Ranchi;
5. Superintendent of Police, Rail, Dhanbad, PO & PS Dhanbad, District
Dhanbad;
6. Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Force-9, Sahibganj, PO & PS
Sahibganj,District Sahbganj. ....Respondents/Respondents
--------
(Through V.C.)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG
-------
JUDGMENT
3rd February 2022
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.
The appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the writ petitioner") is
aggrieved of the order dated 10th April 2018 passed in WP(S) No. 2719 of
2016 by which his prayer for payment of salary for the period from July 2008
to June 2011 has been declined by the writ Court.
2. Short submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner are that:
(i) the writ Court's order suffers from serious errors of record, inasmuch as,
the charge report which was duly signed and the facts recorded in the order
dated 5th April 2016 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand in compliance of the order dated 23rd November 2015 passed in
WP(S) No. 689 of 2015 have been ignored and (ii) no finding has been
recorded by the learned writ Court that the so-called absence from duty was
intentional and willful.
3. In the first place, in the Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause
10 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (adopted by the High Court of
Jharkhand) every error of record cannot be examined by the Court and if at
all there is such error of record which has turned the decision against the writ
petitioner the proper remedy for him was to file a review petition.
4. The writ petitioner relies on the observations made in the order
dated 5th April 2016 whereunder the Additional Chief Secretary has recorded
that he tendered joining on 22nd March 2009, however, it was not accepted
because by that time Model Code of Conduct had come into effect. But there
is no pleading supported by an acceptable document that after the Model
Code of Conduct the writ petitioner again approached the authority. We
further find that the writ petitioner was relieved on 1 st July 2008 but he
tendered his joining on 22nd March 2009. There is no explanation by him for
his absence for about nine months and his absence after the general elections
were over till 2011. On behalf of the writ petitioner certain representations
and documents have been referred to by Mr. Bhanu Kumar, the learned
counsel which, however, would indicate that the facts pleaded by him were
seriously disputed by the respondents and, therefore, on that count also the
writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
5. Having held so, we do not find any merit in this Letters Patent
Appeal and, accordingly, it is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 3rd February 2022
Soumya/Nibha-NAFR
