Holika Kumari Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 962 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Holika Kumari Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 9 June, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                             2025:JHHC:14781

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           W.P.(S) No. 850 of 2021
     Holika Kumari Ram, W/o Sri Chumnu Mahto, R/o Village- Birhu, P.O.
     Birhu, P.S.- Khunti, District- Khunti
                                                                  ...Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Government of
     Jharkhand
     2.The Inspector General of Police, State of Jharkhand
     3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi
     4.The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police, 10, Lady Battalion, Hotwar,
     Ranchi                                                     ...Respondent(s)
                               ............
                       CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
           For Petitioner(s)     : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
           For Resp.-State       : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V
                                 ..........
                                 ORDER

Reserved on: 26.03.2025 Pronounced On: 09/06/2025

By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(a) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in nature of certiorari for quashing the order no.230, dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-18) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from her services, for the reason that the order of dismissal lacks coregent reasoning and also lacks deliberation of the documents produced before the appellate authority.

AND/OR

(b) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.06.2012 (Annexure- 9) whereby and whereunder a major punishment of dismissal has been imposed against the petitioner without appreciating the contention raised by the petitioner and the punishment order is disappropriate to the charges leveled against the petitioner.

2. The facts admitted in this case are that the petitioner, a government employee was employed as Lady Constable in Jharkhand Armed Police. She was accused by Uma Devi, who filed complaint vide letters dated 13.10.2011 and 07.02.2012, of having illicit relationship with her husband, namely, Baijnat Sahu. FIR was also lodged by Uma Devi on 12.09.2002, alleging that the petitioner is the cause of marital problems between her and her husband. Based on the complaint, a departmental proceeding being

2025:JHHC:14781

Departmental Proceeding No.8 of 2012 was initiated, in which, the petitioner was directed to submit her defence within ten days. She submitted her defence on 31.03.2012 and finally the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 27.06.2012. The petitioner after her dismissal preferred an appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2012. Against the said order, petitioner has preferred a further appeal before the respondent No.2, which was also rejected vide order dated 18.02.2013. Challenging all the orders, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2690 of 2013. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 07.10.2020 after hearing the parties quashed both the appellate orders and directed the Appellate Authority to pass a reasoned order after discussing all the grounds raised by the petitioner. On the said direction, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 14.12.2020 rejected the appeal of the petitioner, resulting in this application.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations were false and Uma Devi was provoked by her husband, who had been living separately since 2007. He further submitted that during the inquiry, Uma Devi admitted that she had no knowledge about the complaint filed on 07.02.2012, suggesting false implication. He further submitted that despite this, the inquiry officer concluded that the charges were proved. He further submitted that in the order dated 14.12.2020, the Appellate Authority did not take into consideration the genuineness of the complaint filed by the petitioner. Further the Appellate Authority should have taken into consideration the fact that the criminal proceeding against the petitioner has been dropped and the petitioner was discharged of all the allegation levelled against her.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submitted that complaint against the petitioner was not false or malicious. He further submitted that in a detailed departmental inquiry it was found that the allegations are true. He further submitted that departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding are two different proceedings where the standard of proof is different. He further submitted that the petitioner was working as an employee of an organization, which is established for maintaining Law and

2025:JHHC:14781

Order in the society, and due to the seriousness of the misconduct, dismissal from service was justified. He further submitted that all proper procedures were followed, and there was no violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend herself during the inquiry, thus the impugned order needs no interference.

5. From the record, I find that after dismissal of the petitioner, the petitioner filed two appeals consecutively, which were rejected, thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition where the Appellate Authority was directed to pass a reasoned order. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order dated 14.12.2020. In this writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court has only quashed the appellate orders being cryptic and non-speaking and remitted the case to the Appellate Authority to pass a reasoned order. No observation has been made regarding the departmental proceeding of the petitioner. In that view, I am also taking into consideration as to whether the procedure adopted by the authorities in the departmental proceeding was justified or not.

6. After perusal of the material of the record, I find that the charge against the petitioner is of having illicit relationship with the husband of the complainant, which as per the respondents-authorities is against the code of conduct of the department, for which, a departmental proceeding was initiated. In the departmental proceeding notice was issued to the petitioner which she replied. The witnesses were examined and cross-examined in the disciplinary proceeding in presence of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer after conducting a detailed inquiry has submitted his report. After that second show cause notice was also issued which, she replied and thereafter, punishment was imposed. In my opinion there is no procedural illegality or irregularity, committed by the disciplinary authority in concluding the departmental proceeding.

7. Now coming back to the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Appellate Authority did not take into consideration the vital aspect of the matter. After perusal of the appellate order, I find that the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration all the evidences, oral and documentary against the petitioner. The authority has

2025:JHHC:14781

also taken note of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner and observed that the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding and a departmental proceeding is different. The instance taken by the Appellate Authority in my opinion is correct as the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding is beyond reasonable doubt, however in a departmental proceeding it is preponderance of probability. The authority has also taken into consideration the defence of the petitioner which according to the authority is not solid and rational. After considering all the aspects, authority found the petitioner guilty of the offence and thus, rejected the appeal and consequently dismissed the petitioner. In my opinion, the Appellate Authority has correctly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner with a well- reasoned order.

8. There is limited scope of this Court for interfering with the punishment order. One of the ground to interfere in a punishment order is when such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar, reported in (2022) 17 SCC 361 at para 21 has held as under:-

21. In Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh [Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 159] , in para 19, it was observed and held as under : (SCC p.

382) "19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows:

19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.

19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.

19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.

19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.

19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be

2025:JHHC:14781

on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable."

9. In this case, the punishment imposed in my opinion is too harsh and disproportionate to the nature of charge against the petitioner. It is settled proposition of law that the punishment imposed should commensurate with the offence proved. The misconduct committed by the petitioner is not so grave, for which, a capital punishment is imposed.

10. In the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is also held that in such a case when the punishment is found shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. Thus, I remit back the matter to the Appellate Authority for consideration only on the point of punishment.

11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

R.S.