Jharkhand High Court
Megh Nath Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 February, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4734 of 2022
Megh Nath Yadav, son of late Ram Prasad Yadav, resident of village
Babhan Ganwa, P.O Kalge Garg, P.S. Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur,
Bihar. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coalfield Area, Bokaro, P.O and
P.S- B.S. City, District- Bokaro.
4. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, P.O and P.S. Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad. .... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the petitioner(s): Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to AG.
------
06/04.02.2025: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the
impugned order as contained in Memo No. 236 dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure-
10 to this petition) passed by respondent No. 2 as well as the original order of
Penalty as contained in Memo No. 325 dated 10.4.2019 (Annexure-6)
whereby, the respondent No. 3 imposed a punishment of dismissal from
service under Rule 845 of the Police Manual with immediate effect and
withheld salary for the period during suspension under Rule 941 of the Police
Manual.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner has been dismissed from
service. He further submits that the enquiry report is ex parte and no witness
was examined in this case.
4. The learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner
went on leave and remained absence for 99 days. Thereafter he was allowed
to join. Thereafter the petitioner got convicted in Kahalgaon P.S. Case No. 163
of 1996 for the offence under Sections 328, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, in which chargesheet was also submitted and the punishment inflicted
was for life. Thus, the petitioner has been dismissed from service.
5. During course of argument, Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for
the petitioner accepts the aforesaid fact that the petitioner has been convicted
for committing the offence under Sections 302 IPC. He submits that a criminal
appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 320 of 2016 against the judgment of
conviction and sentence is pending before the Hon'ble Patna High Court.
6. From the admitted fact, it is apparent that the petitioner is a life
convict. Since the petitioner is a life convict and sentence has been awarded
after proper trial, it would not be proper to set aside his order of dismissal,
which is based on the judgment of conviction and as the same is under Rule
845 of the Police Manual.
7. When it is admitted case of both the parties that the petitioner is a
life convict and his conviction has not yet been set aside, giving opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner to rebut the aforesaid fact will be nothing but a
wastage of time and will be a futile exercise.
8. In that view, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order
of dismissal from service. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
9. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the
appropriate authority after disposal of Cr. Appeal No. 320 of 2016, pending
before the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Patna.
Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J. )
