Jharkhand High Court
The Managing Director vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:14882-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.49 of 2025
-----
The Managing Director, JHASCOLAMF Ltd. Purulia Road, P.O. &
P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand through its Managing
Director Prakash Kumar, s/o Ramjee Singh, Address- Satyam
Apartment, Edalhatu, Bariyatu, Morabadi, P.O. & P.S. Bariyatu,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand .......... Appellant.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Surendra Pandey, s/o Late Hari Nandan Pandey, resident of
Chaibagan, Namkum, P.O. Khijri, P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. The Secretary, Department of Co-operative Societies, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
4. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Department of Co-
operative Societies, Engineer's Hostel, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The District Audit Officer, Co-operative Societies, Engineer's
Hostel, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. The District Co-operative Officer, Vikash Bhawan, Kutchary Road,
P.O. GPO, Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. The Development Officer (Marketing), JHASCOLAM Ltd. Purulia
Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate
: Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I
For the Res. No.2 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
-----
Order No.02 Date: 10.06.2025
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment
dated 26th September, 2024 of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(S) No.5304 of 2021.
2. The appellant herein is the 6th respondent before the learned
Single Judge. It is a Society registered under the Jharkhand Co-
operative Societies Act, 1935. The 2nd respondent had been
appointed as a Laboratory Assistant by the appellant in the said
2025:JHHC:14882-DB
Society. An F.I.R. was lodged against him on 8th March, 2011 by
the appellant before the Officer-in-Charge, Namkum Police
Station, Ranchi for alleged misappropriation of Seed Lac Products
of Rs.78 lakhs by committing fraud and forgery. The F.I.R. No.50
of 2011 then came to be registered under Sections 409, 420, 468,
471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Thereafter, the Administrative Officer of the Society issued a
memo dated 20th May, 2011 directing the 2nd respondent and
another to submit show cause in respect of charges levelled in
the F.I.R.
4. The 2nd respondent submitted reply to the show cause notice on
23rd May, 2011.
5. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent was suspended on 24th May, 2011
by the appellant.
6. The charge memo was then issued to the 2nd respondent and
departmental proceedings were initiated. The District Co-
Operative Officer, Ranchi was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On
1st September, 2012, the District Co-operative Officer, Ranchi
submitted report exonerating the 2nd respondent of the charges
levelled against him.
7. The appellant, not being satisfied with the opinion of the Enquiry
Officer directed the Enquiry Officer to re-enquire, but again the
Enquiry Officer gave the same finding.
8. Thereafter, the Managing Director, being the Disciplinary
Authority, did not accept the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer,
differed with it and appointed the 7th respondent as Enquiry
2025:JHHC:14882-DB
Officer and directed him to conduct the departmental proceeding
afresh against the 2nd respondent.
9. The 7th respondent this time found the 2nd respondent guilty of
charges.
10. A second show cause notice was issued to the 2 nd respondent,
who denied the charges and ultimately, in a meeting of the Board
of Directors dated 17th June, 2014, the services of the 2nd
respondent were terminated and he was dismissed from service
vide order dated 5th July, 2014.
11. The 2nd respondent challenged it in W.P.(S) No.4996 of 2014.
12. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11th January, 2021, the
order of dismissal dated 5th July, 2014 was quashed; and the
matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for passing a
fresh order in accordance with law after following the principles
of natural justice.
13. Though the Disciplinary Authority issued a fresh show cause
notice, gave an opportunity to the 2nd respondent and passed a
fresh order on 21st June, 2021 which is Annexure-11 to the
present appeal, a reading of the said order indicates that there
was no independent application of mind to either the charges
levelled against the 2nd respondent, or the explanation of the 2nd
respondent, or the evidence adduced in the disciplinary enquiry,
and no fresh reasons have been given, except the reason that
previously on 17th June, 2014 the Board of Directors had
approved the termination of service of the 2nd respondent.
2025:JHHC:14882-DB
14. Since there was no fresh application of mind by the Disciplinary
Authority as directed by this Court in its order passed on 11 th
January, 2021 in W.P.(S) No.4996 of 2014 when the petitioner
challenged the order of termination dated 21st June, 2021 in
W.P.(S) No.5304 of 2021, the learned Single Judge set aside the
order dated 21st June, 2021, and since the 2nd respondent had
already retired, he held that there cannot be any order for
reinstatement, but directed payment to the 2nd respondent of all
other consequential benefits.
15. In the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the learned
Single Judge had categorically held that the appellant had not
acted in accordance with the order passed on 11th January, 2021
by this Court in W.P.(S) No.4996 of 2014. He also categorically
held that the previous order of termination had been affirmed in
the order dated 21st June, 2021 mechanically and, therefore, the
said order required interference by the Court.
16. We see no reason to disagree with the reasoning of the learned
Single Judge.
17. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
18. No cost.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/Rohit
