The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... vs Nandu Ram
2026 Latest Caselaw 2843 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... vs Nandu Ram on 9 April, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                2026:JHHC:10177-DB

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         L.P.A No. 142 of 2025
1.   The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Human
Resource Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dist.-Ranchi,
PO+PS+Dist.-Ranchi
2.   The Director, Primary Education, Human Resource Development
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dist.-Ranchi, PO+PS+Dist.-Ranchi
3.   The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, Dist.-Palamu, PO+PS+Dist-
Palamu
4.     The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamu, Dist.-Palamu
5.   The District Superintendent of Education, Palamu, PO+PS+Dist-
Palamu                                        ... ... Appellant(s)

                                Versus
Nandu Ram, son of Late Birju Ram, resident of PO Tolra, PS Rehla Block,
District-Palamu, Jharkhand                 ... ... Respondent(s)

CORAM:         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Appellant(s)           : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II
For the Respondent(s)          : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate
                             --------
                         JUDGMENT

CAV on 30/03/2026                          Pronounced on 09/04/2026
Per Deepak Roshan, J.

1. This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated

16.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6782 of

2016; whereby the learned writ Court has quashed the order of punishment

and further directed the respondents in writ application to reconsider the

case of the writ petitioner for inflicting punishment other than

dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent-writ petitioner (in short, writ

petitioner) was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher vide letter dated

2026:JHHC:10177-DB

31.12.1999. After serving for more than three years, he has fallen ill.

Thereafter, he proceeded on leave for his proper check up and upon

investigation, the Doctor had informed him that he was suffering from

acute depression and accordingly he was advised to take proper treatment.

Upon such advice of the Doctor, the writ petitioner sent an

application for extension of leave through registered post to the District

Superintendent of Education as well as to the Principal, Government

Middle School, Birshrampur, Palamau where he was posted at that time.

The fact further reveals that after a gap of almost seven years

when the writ petitioner was declared medically fit, he approached the

school on 19.01.2012 to rejoin his services; however, the same was refused

by the Principal of the School. Thereafter, the writ petitioner represented

several authorities but he could not succeed and being aggrieved by the

inaction of the State authorities, he was forced to file a writ application

being W.P.(S) No. 4225 of 2014 primarily praying for a direction upon the

respondent-authorities to accept his joining; however, during pendency of

the aforesaid writ application, his claim for rejoining was rejected by the

authorities vide order dated 14.09.2014 and by way of interlocutory

application the writ petitioner had also assailed the said order.

This Court after hearing the parties quashed and set aside the

order of dismissal dated 14.09.2014. However, a liberty was given to the

respondents in writ application to proceed against the writ petitioner in

terms of Rule 74(b) of the Jharkhand Service Code. Pursuant to the said

2026:JHHC:10177-DB

order passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation, a disciplinary

proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner by framing charge

dated 10.05.2018 which contained three charges.

During enquiry proceeding, the writ petitioner duly

participated and finally the enquiry officer submitted its report to the

disciplinary authority holding that two out of three charges were not

proved. However, the charge regarding absenteeism was proved.

Thereafter, the disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report

and after getting reply to the second show-cause notice, had again passed

the order of dismissal with effect from 14.09.2004 vide order dated

27.10.2018. This order was challenged by the petitioner in the instant case

by way of filing W.P.(S) No. 6782 of 2016.

3. It transpires from record that pursuant to the order passed by

the writ Court in earlier round of litigation; though a regular proceeding

was initiated but the writ petitioner was not held guilty for the charge

nos. (i) and (ii). Further, for charge no. (iii) it was the opinion of the

enquiry officer that it requires consideration in view of sympathetic

situation.

4. Learned writ Court has given a categorical finding that the

writ petitioner was able to satisfy the Court that the absenteeism was due

to compelling circumstances. Learned Single Judge has also referred the

judgment passed in the case of "M. V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors." 1

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though the jurisdiction of

(2006) 5 SCC 88

2026:JHHC:10177-DB

the Court in judicial review is limited; however, the disciplinary

proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence

to prove the charge and after giving all these findings quashed the order of

punishment dated 27.10.2018 and further directed the appellants herein to

reconsider the case of the writ petitioner for inflicting punishment other

than dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement. In other words, the

learned writ Court on the question of quantum of punishment has remitted

the case to the disciplinary authority in view of the fact that the

absenteeism was due to compelling circumstances and it was not a willful

absenteeism.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned writ Court

the State is in appeal.

6. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that from bare perusal

of the enquiry report it appears that the charges against the writ petitioner

have been duly proved and there is no procedural irregularity and the Ld.

writ Court has failed to appreciate that the writ petitioner was

unauthorizedly absent for seven years continuously and under Rule 76 of

Service Code, this was the only punishment; as such, the order passed by

the Ld. Single Judge for reconsidering the matter on the question of

quantum of punishment is without any basis.

7. After going through the entire record, it appears that an

interlocutory application being I.A No.13211 of 2025 has also been filed

for condoning the delay of 194 days in filing the appeal. But this Court has

2026:JHHC:10177-DB

decided to proceed this case on merit.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and after

going through the documents annexed with the memo of appeal it appears

that earlier the writ petitioner filed a writ application being W.P.(S) No.

4225 of 2014 wherein the only prayer of the writ petitioner was for a

direction upon the respondents to allow him to join his service. The said

writ application was partly allowed in favour of the writ petitioner and the

impugned order dated 14.09.2014 was quashed. For brevity, relevant

portion of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4225 of 2014 is extracted

hereinbelow:

"As per Rule 76(b) of the Bihar Service Code, a Government servant can be removed from service, if he remain absent unauthorizedly for more than five years after following the procedure laid down in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1935. Admittedly, in the instant case, as per the aforesaid rule no departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner nor the petitioner was given any opportunity of hearing.

Under the said circumstances, I find that the impugned order dated 14.08.2014 cannot be sustained being violative of principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, I quash the impugned order dated 14.08.2014 and direct the respondent no.5 to initiate a proceeding against the petitioner as per Rule 76(b) of Bihar Service Code and after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent no.5 shall pass fresh order in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ application stands allowed."

9. Pursuant thereto; a regular departmental proceeding was

initiated in which the enquiry officer has categorically held that charge

nos. (i) and (ii) are not proved and regarding charge no. (iii) the enquiry

officer opined that it requires consideration in view of the admitted

position that the writ petitioner was suffering from mental illness.

2026:JHHC:10177-DB

10. The learned writ Court has given a specific finding that

though the appellants herein were directed to initiate a regular proceeding

under Rule 76 of the Jharkhand Service Code but since the enquiry officer

has exonerated the writ petitioner from first two charges and also for the

charge no.(iii) he has given a finding that it requires consideration; then

certainly the order of punishment is not commensurate with the charges.

The learned writ Court has also relied upon the judgment passed in the

case of "Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India & Anr." 2 wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if allegation of unauthorized absence

from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the

absence is willful.

11. After going through the entire record, it does not transpire that

the appellants herein have been able to demonstrate that the absence was

willful. As a matter of fact, when the writ petitioner went on leave for the

first time and was treated by the Doctor; the doctor opined for a better

treatment since the writ petitioner was suffering from acute depression,

and therefore, the writ petitioner also sent a letter to the appellants herein

for extension of leave but the treatment continued for seven long years and

finally after receipt of fitness certificate; the writ petitioner wanted to join

the duty.

Thus, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the

absenteeism was willful. Furthermore, neither before the writ Court; nor

before us, Ld. Counsel for the appellants could demonstrate that the

(2012) 3 SCC 178

2026:JHHC:10177-DB

absenteeism was willful and it was not due to compelling circumstances.

12. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and the factual

background, we are of the considered opinion that the learned writ Court

has rightly quashed the order impugned treating it to be unduly harsh and

directed the appellants herein to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner

by inflicting any lessor punishment other than dismissal, removal and

compulsory retirement. As such we are not inclined to interfere with the

order passed by the learned writ Court.

13. This appeal has also been filed with a delay of 194 days and

no satisfactory explanation has been given by the appellants.

14. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed, both on merit as

well as on limitation.

15. Pending I.A. for stay of the proceeding, is accordingly

dismissed. However, there shall be no order to cost.

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 09/04/2026 Amit N.A.F.R Uploaded on 09/04/2026