Ramlakhan Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand; on 4 February, 2026

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                          2026:JHHC:2963


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                W.P.(S) No. 724 of 2026
                                                   -----
        Ramlakhan Ram, S/o Kuleshwar Ram, R/o Village- Serandag, P.O.-
        Bagra, P.S.- Simaria, District- Chatra, Jharkhand
                                                         ....Petitioner(s).
                                       Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand;
     2. The Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand,
        Ranchi, officiating from his office at Jharkhand Police Headquarters,
        Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand;
     3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (JAP), Jharkhand, Ranchi,
        officiating from his office at Raja Rani Kothi, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda,
        Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand;
     4. The Superintendent of Police, Palamau cum Commandant, (IRB-8).
        having Camp office at Lesliganj, P.O., P.S. & District- Palamau,
        Jharkhand;                                       ...Respondent(s).

                                         ------
               CORAM        :       SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, AC to GA- III

.........

02/ 04.02.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

i. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of 'certiorari' for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 4 (Commandant, JAP-8) vide Memo No. 39/Go (Ann-3), whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with major punishment of forfeiture of increment for one year with immediate effect, equivalent to two black marks; and the appellate order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3 (DIG, JAP) vide Memo No. 379/Sa.Sha (Ann-4), rejecting the petitioner's departmental appeal and affirming the aforesaid punishment order, on the grounds that the same are arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, and contrary to the evidence on record.

ii. After quashing the impugned orders, this Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to direct the respondents to restore the forfeited increment and remove the black marks from the service record of the petitioner with all consequential benefits."

2026:JHHC:2963

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable on 20.12.2003 and was promoted to Havildar in 2014. He is presently posted at JAP-8, Palamau, Jharkhand. While posted there, a charge memo was issued against him on 14.07.2022 alleging negligence of duty. It was alleged that during his duty as Guard In-charge, one Havildar fired a round from his rifle and the petitioner failed to report the incident to senior officers. Based on this allegation, the petitioner was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer held the charges to be proved. The disciplinary authority imposed a minor punishment of forfeiture of one year's increment, which was later upheld in appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings are against the evidence on record, the authorities acted mechanically and arbitrarily. He further submits that Sub-Inspector Digambar Singh, categorically admitted during cross-examination that the petitioner had informed him about the firing incident though informally. He also submits that the main perpetrator, Havildar Samarjeet Kumar, clearly stated that the petitioner was not present at the spot when the firing occurred and the firing was purely accidental. He further submits that the punishment of forfeiture of increment amounting to two black marks is harsh and disproportionate.

4. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the departmental enquiry was initiated following due procedure under the applicable service rules. The petitioner was granted full opportunity to participate in the enquiry and was permitted to submit his defence. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer considered the evidence and arrived at a reasoned conclusion. He also submits that the petitioner failed to ensure proper supervision and immediate reporting of the incident to the competent authority.

2026:JHHC:2963

He further submits that the penalty imposed commensurate with the proved charge. The penalty imposed is minor in nature and does not affect the petitioner's rank or service continuity.

5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable service rules after granting the petitioner full opportunity of hearing. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to charge against the petitioner, that is, during duty as Guard In-charge, one Havildar fired a round from his rifle and the petitioner failed to report the incident to senior officers is fully proved. Further, based on the same, the punishment of forfeiture of one year's increment, equivalent to two black marks by the Disciplinary Authority was rightly affirmed by the Appellate Authorities. Further, the punishment of forfeiture of one year's increment, equivalent to two black marks, is not shockingly disproportionate to the proved charge against the petitioner, particularly when it does not affect his rank or continuity of service.

6. The Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, does not act as an Appellate Authority over departmental proceeding, unless perversity or gross illegality is shown, which is absent in the present case. Further, it is well settled that the punishment awarded to the petitioner, unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review by the court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372, in paragraph 19 has held as under-

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

2026:JHHC:2963

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 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.

7. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case and since there is no procedural irregularity or illegality, I find that the punishment of forfeiture of one year's increment given to the petitioner commensurate with the proved charge. Thus, no ground made out to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority which are under challenge. Further the petitioner is a member of disciplined force (constable), hence he is required to maintain strict discipline [refer, Samar Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 94].