Umesh Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7167 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Umesh Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 25 November, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                        2025:JHHC:35152

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  W.P.(S) No. 2320 of 2021
                                             ------
                 Umesh Kumar Pandey, son of Srikant Pandey, resident of Bajrang
                 Bihar Colony, Barwadda, P.O and P.S. Barwadda, District- Dhanbad.
                                                                     ... Petitioner(s)
                                             Versus
            1.   The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary of Department of
                 Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand,
                 at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
            2.   The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand,
                 having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
            3.   The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dumka.
            4.   The Superintendent of Police, Deoghar.              ...Respondent(s)
                                             ------

                       CORAM        :      SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the petitioner(s): M/s. Shresth Goutam and Prashant Jha, Advocates.

         For the State               Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC-VI
                                     Mr. Puyush Anand, AC to SC-VI
                                            ------
13/25.11.2025:         By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
         relief(s):-
                             (a)        For quashing the order dated 4.12.2020

passed by the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar in compliance of the order passed by the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (the Appellate Authority) demoting the petitioner from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector to the post of Constable.

(b) For quashing the order dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure-9) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dumka (the Disciplinary Authority) whereby the Disciplinary Authority has inflicted major punishment upon the petitioner of forfeiting his six months' increment without hearing the Petitioner in person and without giving him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses in complete derogation of the principle of natural justice.

(c) Pass any other order/orders or direction/directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

(d) For quashing the order contained in Memo No. 206/D dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure-13) passed by the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand (Appellate Authority) whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and enhanced the punishment of demotion from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector to the post of Constable for three years without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

2. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner only restricts his prayer to the part of the order passed by the Appellate Authority by which, the petitioner has been demoted from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector to the post of Constable. He has given up the challenge of the initial order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

3. To decide the issue in question, it is not necessary to deal in details on each and every minute facts of this matter, as the entire challenge now revolves around the question of law.

4. This petitioner was appointed as Constable on 01.07.1988. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2015. While serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. A Show cause notice was issued to him on 23.11.2019 as contained in Memo No. 166 along with the charge sheet contained in memo No. 6545 dated 20.11.2019 and he was asked to submit a detailed reply.

5. As the petitioner has not challenged the finding of the Disciplinary Authority, I am not mentioning what were the charges against the petitioner.

An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who after the inquiry, submitted his report. As per the Enquiry Report, the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. Once the charge was proved, the Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause notice to the petitioner. In the second show cause notice, it was proposed that why not the petitioner be demoted in rank for the proved misconduct. The petitioner filed a detailed reply. Considering the reply and the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, vide memo No. 547 dated 4.3.2020 contained in Order No. 35/2020 inflicted the punishment of forfeiture of salary increment which is equivalent to one black mark with future warning. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police. The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand vide order as

contained in Memo No. 206(D) dated 12.11.2020 not only dismissed the appeal of the petitioner but also enhanced his punishment by demoting the petitioner from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to the post of Constable. Now, the petitioner, has challenged the order of his demotion.

6. Be it noted that during the course of argument, counsel for the petitioner submits that he is giving up his challenge to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that through the Appellate Authority, as per law, has power to enhance the punishment but the same cannot be done without following the principle of natural justice. It is his specific case that before enhancing the punishment, the Appellate Authority has not given an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard nor any show cause notice was issued to that effect. It is his further contention that in utter violation of principle of natural justice, the order of enhancement has been passed, so the part of the order, by which, the punishment has been enhanced needs to be set aside. The petitioner, in support of his case also relies upon the judgment delivered in the case of Shiv Shankair Tudu Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 3730.

7. The counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the provision of law is quite clear. The Police Manual gives power to the Appellate Authority to enhance the punishment. It is his further contention that as per the Rule, in all circumstances, it is not necessary to issue notice before enhancing the punishment. He also submits that the cases in which notice needs to be issued varies from case to case and discretion is upon the Appellate Authority as to whether notice can be issued or not. It is his also contention that since the Appellate Authority has enhanced the punishment and has decided not to issue notice, it should be presumed that the facts of this case does not warrant issuance of notice to the petitioner.

8. The undisputed facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition is mentioned above. The another undisputed fact, which is also admitted by the counsel for the respondent is that before enhancement of punishment no notice of show cause was issued to the petitioner nor he was heard. On this back-drop, I have to decide the merit of the points, raised by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was demoted from the post of Sub- Inspector of Police to the post of Constable.

9. Rule 853A of the Jharkhand Police Manual provides for procedure to be followed by the Inspector General while hearing the Departmental Appeal. Rule 853A(a) of the Manual gives power to the Inspector General to call for the file in any case even when no appeal lies and pass any order. Rule 853A(b) of the Police Manual gives power to the State Government to pass any order in a Departmental proceeding when no appeal or memorial lies. The important provision of law for the purpose of deciding the writ petition is 853A(c) of the Jharkhand Police Manual, which gives power to the Inspector General to enhance the punishment in in an appeal. The said Rules reads as under:-

"853A(c):- When an appeal has been filed and the Inspector General on applying his mind thinks that he should enhance the punishment, he can dismiss the appeal but must simultaneously mention in that order that as per powers given in the Rule 853A(a), he has decided to review it for enhancement and take action for obtaining a show cause, etc. where necessary."

10. From the aforesaid provision, it is quite clear that the Inspector General has the power and jurisdiction to enhance the punishment by reviewing the same in terms of Rule 853A(a) and take action for obtaining a show cause etc. where necessary. (emphasis supplied).

11. It is the argument of the respondents that the phrase 'where necessary' gives discretion to the Appellate Authority to take a decision as to whether it is necessary to issue notice or not, prior to enhancement of punishment. As per them, when no notice has been issued, it will be presumed that it is not a fit case to issue notice to show cause and the Appellate Authority can enhance the punishment without even issuing show cause notice. This argument has been opposed by the counsel for the petitioner.

12. The enhancement of punishment in an appeal filed by the delinquent employee means passing an order which is detrimental to the interest of the employee. The appeal is filed by the employee bona fidely on presumption that he has good chance of success and the punishment can be set aside or reviewed. No one approaches the Appellate Authority with presumption that his punishment will be enhanced.

13. As noticed above, Rule 853A (a) read with Rule 853A(c) of the Jharkhand Police Manual definitely gives power to the Inspector General to enhance the punishment but having a power to enhance the punishment and exercising the said power are two different aspects; one may have the power but may not choose to exercise the same, but once chooses to exercise the same and that too to the determent of the employee, the principle of natural justice has to be followed. Even if the phrase 'where necessary' has been used in the provision of law, it cannot be meant to by- pass the necessity of adhering to the principle of natural justice. Even if the provision does not mention that the notice should be issued, then also the principle of natural justice has to be followed, as the same is read to be inherently mandated. There is nothing in the said Rule, which excludes the compliance of the principle of natural justice. If nothing is mentioned about compliance of the principle of natural justice in a provision of law, the same must be treated to as an inherent provision. Any exclusion to the said Rule has to be specifically mandated and cannot be presumed. Since there is no specific mentioning of exclusion of the principle of natural justice, I hold that the same has to be adhered strictly. Every action which an employer intends to take against the employee and if such action is to the detriment of the employee, the action must precede with a notice to show cause and the principles of natural justice must be followed strictly.

14. Further, in the instant case, the Appellate Authority has differed with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, in my opinion when the Appellate Authority differs with any finding of the Disciplinary Authority or any action of the Disciplinary Authority including imposition of sentence and the quantum of sentence, he has to give reason as to why he is differing. Not only he has to give reason, but the said reason why he is differing must be communicated to the delinquent employee, so that he can give proper reply in support of his defence. I am drawing this analogy from the procedure, which is followed in the Departmental Proceeding, where the Disciplinary Authority has got the power to differ with the findings of the Departmental Inquiry Officer, if the Enquiry Officer exonerates the employee, but if after differing, he wants to hold the employee guilty he has to issue notice to show cause informing the

employee the reasons of such difference. The aforesaid analogy can well be applied in this case also.

15. Thus, I hold that in every case where the Appellate Authority wants to enhance the punishment, he has to issue notice of show cause to the delinquent employee and the principles of natural justice must be followed. Without following the principle of natural justice, the punishment inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be enhanced.

16. Admittedly, in this case as no notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner prior to enhancement of punishment, I am inclined to set aside the part of the Appellate Order dated 4.12.2020 by which, the Appellate Authority has inflicted the punishment of demotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to the post of Constable. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority of forfeiture of increment, which is equivalent to one black mark, is restored. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police immediately.

17. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed.

25th November, 2025 Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)