Jharkhand High Court
Mukul Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 March, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3891 of 2019
-------
Mukul Paswan, son of Sripati Paswan, resident of village- Fatehpur, P.O.-
Fatepur, P.S. Zeromile, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar. .. Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Ranchi.
3. The Addl. Director General, Koyla Range, Bokaro, P.O and P.S and District-
Bokaro, Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koyla Ranger, Bokaro, P.O and
P.S. and District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, P.O and P.S and District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... Respondents.
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate.
For the respondent(s): Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, GA-I
Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to GA-I.
------
10/25.03.2025: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed to set aside the
order of punishment inflicted upon the petitioner after conclusion of
departmental enquiry.
3. Vide order dated 31.1.2016, the petitioner has been terminated
from service on the ground that the charge levelled against the petitioner
stands proved. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on
8.3.2018.
4. The petitioner was in the Jharkhand Police and was appointed as
a constable in the month of August, 2009. The petitioner was charge-sheeted
for committing misconduct as he was found in drunken state while discharging
his duty. A Departmental Proceeding was initiated and thereafter the petitioner
was dismissed from service.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry report was not
furnished to the petitioner nor was the second show cause notice.
6. Thus, the short point which falls for consideration is as to whether
the punishment of dismissal from service, which is major punishment can be
inflicted without issuing the second show cause notice annexing the copy of
the enquiry report.
7. On the last date, counsel for the respondent- State was directed to
go through the entire file of the departmental proceeding and inform this Court
as to whether the second show cause notice along with enquiry report was
served to the petitioner or not.
8. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the State, after going
through the record, very fairly submits that the second show cause notice
along with the enquiry report was not served upon the petitioner.
9. Since the second show cause notice along with the equiry report
was not served to the petitioner and the petitioner was dismissed from service
without following the said procedure, this case is covered by the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director,
ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar and Ors. reported in (1993) 4
SCC 727 and in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra
reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84.
10. In view of the admitted facts and the aforesaid proposition of law,
which has been dealt with as aforesaid, the impugned order of punishment
dated 31.01.2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad is set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to resume
the proceeding, after issuing a second show cause notice along with the
enquiry report, to the petitioner with a further direction to the respondents to
conclude the proceeding, preferably within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition
stands allowed.
Anu/-Cp2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
