Ramesh Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 170 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ramesh Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 January, 2026

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                             2026:JHHC:858




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      W.P.(S) No.5503 of 2022
                                  ------
   Ramesh Oraon, son of Late Akalu Oraon, resident of Village
   Bargaon Pathi Toli, P.O. Bargaon, P.S. & District Gumla.
                                                     ... ... Petitioner
                                 Versus
   1. The State of Jharkhand.
   2. The Director General of Police, at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
       District Ranchi.
   3. The Deputy Director General of Police, South Chhotanagpur,
       at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
   4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, P.O., G.P.O., P.S.
       Kotwali, District Ranchi.
                                                  ... ... Respondents
                                  ------
               CORAM       : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, SC-IV

------

09/ 13.01.2026

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and

learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner who is a Police

Constable challenges the order as contained in Memo No.6851

dated 22.07.2013 (Order No.5/13), whereby on conclusion of the

departmental proceeding, the petitioner had been dismissed from

service. Further, the Appellate Order dated 23.03.2020 is also

under challenge. The petitioner also prays for reinstatement.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits

that without following the principles of natural justice, the

petitioner has been dismissed from service. As per him, the

witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding in

absence of petitioner. He lastly submits that the punishment

2026:JHHC:858

imposed is too harsh.

4. Learned counsel representing the respondent - State

opposes the aforesaid prayer and submits that the charge-sheet

was issued to the petitioner but the petitioner did not choose to

appear in the entire proceeding. He further submits from the

records that even the officials had gone to the house of the

petitioner to serve the notices but the wife and the brother of this

petitioner have stated that the petitioner always remains in

intoxicated condition as he drinks in his house and even the

petitioner has no interest to join duty in spite of efforts by his

family members. He submits that being in a Disciplined Force, the

petitioner should have maintained the discipline, and his long

absence without any reason is sufficient to dismiss him. He lastly

submits that there is no procedural illegality or irregularity in the

entire process.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is in Uniformed service. He

is a Police Constable. A person who is in a uniform service must

maintain utmost discipline.

6. The allegation against the petitioner is that at about

10:10 A.M. on 06.12.2012, he was found absent from his duty.

Charge-sheet was submitted on 19.12.2012. It is the case of the

respondents that thereafter the petitioner never joined duty.

When the charge-sheet was sent to the address of the petitioner,

the petitioner did not appear in the entire departmental

proceeding. Time and again opportunity was given to the

petitioner but he did not avail the same. The witnesses were

2026:JHHC:858

examined by the Department to prove the charge. The evidence

clearly proves the charge against the petitioner. The enquiry

report was furnished. A copy of the enquiry report was also sent

to the address of the petitioner.

7. The Appellate Order suggests that one Police official

namely Surendra Singh was sent to the residential house of the

petitioner to give information about the case but the family

members of this petitioner clearly stated that this petitioner

regularly remains under the influence of alcohol and in spite of

their best efforts, he is not going to attend his duties. The

aforesaid facts clearly suggest that opportunity was given to the

petitioner to defend himself but he did not avail the same. The

second show cause notice was also issued but the situation

remains the same. Thereafter, the punishment order was passed

dismissing the petitioner from service as the charge was proved.

8. The Appeal was filed and the Appellate Authority in

details considered the Appeal and thereafter dismissed the same.

9. In a departmental proceeding, the scope of

interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very

limited. This Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority to

reappreciate the evidence and materials.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director

General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others

versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey reported in 2020 SCC OnLine

SC 954 at paragraph 21.1 thereof, has held that it is well settled

that High Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and re-

2026:JHHC:858

appreciate the evidence, which was led before the enquiry officer.

By referring to judgment in the case of State of Andhra

Pradesh Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao [1963 AIR SC 1723], the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the function of the

High Court to review the findings and arrive at a different finding.

In a departmental proceeding, scope is very limited and it is well

settled that the High Court can interfere where the departmental

authority has acted against the principles of natural justice or

where the findings are based on no evidence or in violation of the

statutory rules provided. Further, if the punishment imposed is

excessive, the Court can also interfere. It has also been held by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court that under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:-

(i) re-appreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based;

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

11. In this case, I find that there is no procedural illegality

or irregularity committed by the employer while conducting the

departmental proceeding. The Enquiry Officer also acted properly

while conducting the enquiry and submitting the report. The

2026:JHHC:858

charges thus were proved. There is no material before me to

disagree with the aforesaid finding on the ground of perversity or

on the ground of "No Evidence".

12. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned,

the prerogative to punish the delinquent-employee is of the

employer. The quantum of punishment must be assessed by the

employer and it is not the Court who can substitute its view.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow

Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh reported in

(2013) 12 SCC 372, at para-19, has held as hereunder:-

"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 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

2026:JHHC:858

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."

14. In this case, since the petitioner is in Disciplined Force

and remained unauthorizedly absent for a considerable period of

time, the respondents deemed it fit to dismiss the petitioner from

service, thus I find no reason to interfere with the order of

punishment.

15. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition

stands dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

13 th January, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2

Uploaded on 15.01.2026