Jharkhand High Court

Basant Kumar Singh Aged About 51 Years ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 25 September, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                      2025:JHHC:30656-DB




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                L.P.A. No. 39 of 2025
Basant Kumar Singh aged about 51 years son of Late Amrika Prasad
Singh resident of Village Harhad, Post Office-Jogiyara, P.S -Pratappur,
District-Chatra, (Jharkhand)
                                           ...... Appellant
                           Versus
1.    The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department
of Home Affairs, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project
Bhawan, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.
2.    Shri G.S. Rath, IPS, Director General and Inspector General of
Police, Jharkhand having its office at Police Headquater, P.O-Dhurwa,
P.S- Jagannathpur District- Ranchi.
3.    Shri Laxman Prasad Singh, IPC., Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Raja Rani Kothi, P.O-Doranda, P.S.
Doranda, District- Ranchi-834002.
4.    Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police
having its office at Raja Rani Kothi, P.O+P.S-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
5.    The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police, 4th Battalion,
Bokaro, P.O+P.S-Sector 12, Bokaro District-Bokaro.
                                                  .... Respondents
                           ---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                           ---------
For the Appellant:         Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Advocate
                           Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C.(Mines)-III
                           ---------

04/Dated: 25.09.2025
Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.(Oral)

1. Heard.

2. The Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15.01.2024

passed in W.P.(S) No. 7487 of 2012 of the learned Single Judge, which

was dismissed.

3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant-writ

petitioner has filed the instant appeal.

4. The parties shall be referred to as they were before the learned

writ Court.

-1 of 6- 2025:JHHC:30656-DB

5. The petitioner approached the writ Court with a prayer for

quashing the order dated 05.01.2012 whereby and whereunder the

respondent No.4 (Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police) had imposed

the punishment of forfeiture of two years' increment with cumulative

effect. This order of punishment was thereafter affirmed by the appellate

authority as well as the revisional authority.

6. The brief facts which led into filing of the instant appeal, are that

the petitioner while undergoing training at Jharkhand Armed Police

Force, 1st Battalion, Ranchi for the Senior Promotion Course (SPC), he

applied for grant of leave which was forwarded to respondent No.4.

Subsequently, the petitioner again gave an application for leave to the

Incharge of Doranda Police Station and when the leave was not

granted, the petitioner handed over the leave application to the media

persons which led to news items being published in two Hindi daily

newspapers i.e. Dainik Bhaskar, Ranchi edition dated 30th April, 2011

and the Ranchi edition of Prabhat Khabar dated 30th April, 2011. As

regards the Dainik Bhaskar it was published under the caption "बहन की

शादी के िलए छु ी मां ग रहे जै प के जवान ने कहा छु ी दो, नही ं तो दे दगे जान" and in Prabhat

Khabar it was published under the caption "जमादार ने िसपाही को पीटा".

7. The respondents after coming across the news items felt that the

news items tarnished the image of the Police Department and

accordingly, the Chief Instructor wrote a letter to the Commandant,

Jharkhand Armed Police-I dated 30th April, 2011 and the Commandant,

in turn, set up an enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer and framed

charges against the petitioner and thereafter issued chargsheet to the

petitioner.

-2 of 6- 2025:JHHC:30656-DB

8. The petitioner replied to the same and finding the reply not to be

satisfactory the Departmental Proceeding No. 5/2011 came to be

initiated against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority.

9. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner

guilty of charges.

10. The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report as

well as the misconduct of the appellant, passed the order of punishment

dated 05.01.2012 thereby ordering withholding of one increment for two

years with cumulative effect.

11. The petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi.

The appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.06.2012. The

petitioner then preferred a revision application before the Director

General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi. However,

even the revision also came to be dismissed vide order dated

11.09.2012 constraining the petitioner to approach the writ Court.

12. The learned writ Court after taking into consideration the entirety

of the facts and circumstances, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by

the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the instant

appeal.

13. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel

for the petitioner that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate

authority and revisional authority while imposing the penalty and

thereafter affirming the same have ignored the provisions of Jharkhand

Police Manual Rules and the Police Act, 1861 which in fact has not at all

been considered by the learned writ Court.

-3 of 6- 2025:JHHC:30656-DB

14. We have considered the arguments so raised by the petitioner

and find that this issue was never argued before the learned writ Court

and thus, it is deemed to have been dismissed.

15. That apart, the petitioner has not been in a position to elaborate

his plea as to which provisions of Jharkhand Police Manual and Police

Act have been violated.

16. The charges of misconduct against the petitioner are very serious

in nature and we are of the considered view that the petitioner as a

matter of fact has been meted with very light punishment given the

quantum and magnitude of misconduct. After all the petitioner was a

Government servant and cannot act like a private individual, who is free

to act in a manner whatever he/she likes unless it is interdicted or

prohibited by law.

17. The petitioner being a Government servant was expected to

discharge his duties with complete integrity which would take in its

sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity,

blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness,

righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation,

nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral

excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence

to a code of moral values [Refer to Union of India and others Vs. P.

Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610].

18. In needs to reiterate that the public servants have to act strictly in

the four corners of law and all the activities are governed by rules,

regulations, instructions etc. Discipline is the hallmark of every

employee and in case, an employee is not ready to subject

himself/herself to discipline, then obviously, he not only invites the wrath

-4 of 6- 2025:JHHC:30656-DB

of his employer but is also liable to be proceeded at least

departmentally. Every employee must be loyal and disciplined towards

his employer, which the petitioner has failed to do so.

19. The petitioner is not an ordinary Government servant but is a

member of a disciplined force who has to exhibit a much higher level of

discipline than an ordinary Government servant as has repeatedly been

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [Ref to Jai Singh Vs. UOI and

others, (2006) 9 SCC 717, Secy to Government and others Vs.

A.C.J., Britto (1997) 3 SCC 387].

20. The learned writ Court after going through the materials on record

has held that no case was made out for interference for the following

facts and reasons:-

"(I). The findings of the enquiry officer were taken into consideration and the punishment order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority assigning cogent and valid reasons.

The same was affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority, which requires no interference. (II) Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any procedural laches in the proceedings rather a full- fledged enquiry was conducted following the provisions of natural justice by extending the petitioner ample opportunity of being heard.

(III) Admittedly, when the order of punishment was affirmed upto the Revisional Authority, this Court refrains itself from interfering with the same."

21. It is more than settled that this Court even while exercising the

writ jurisdiction does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is

circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or

procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles

of natural justice.

22. Judicial review is not akin to the decision of a case on merit as an

appellate authority. Insufficiency of materials cannot be a ground to

annul the findings of the Enquiry Officer neither can a substituted view

-5 of 6- 2025:JHHC:30656-DB

be taken in place of Enquiry officer/disciplinary authority in cases of

departmental proceeding and the same would be interfered only when

(a) Where there has been a violation of the principles of natural