2025:JHHC:17072 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 7417 of 2013 ---------- Priya Tiwary, w/o. late Ashok Kumar Tiwary, 29, Hill View Colony, Road No. 2, Dimna Chowk, Mango, Jamshedpur, Kopali, M.G.M., Medical College, Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, Town & Dist. Ranchi. 2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand. 3. The Additional Director General of Police, Railway, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Rail), Jharkhand. 5. The Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jamshedpur. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Railway, Rail Division, Dhanbad. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav (L&C)-III ---------- 09/ 26.06.2025 The original petitioner had approached this Court with a prayer for quashing part of the appellate order dated 04.09.2013, passed by the Inspector General of Police, Rail, Jharkhand whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected affirming the part of the final order dated 12.04.2012. 2. The brief facts of the case as it appears from the writ application are that the original petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector on 21.07.1980. After successful completion of training, the original petitioner was posted at many places. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.06.2010, the original petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding on the charge of unauthorized absence from the duty, dereliction of duty, inefficiency and non-compliance of the order/letter bearing No.625 dated 18.06.09. Charge memo was issued and an ex-parte departmental enquiry was initiated against the original petitioner. 2025:JHHC:17072 2 3. Thereafter, the original petitioner made representation before the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Dhanbad denying all the charges levelled against him. Further, fresh enquiry was conducted and the original petitioner was exonerated from all the charges. However, after receipt of the enquiry report, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Rail), Jharkhand, Ranchi, straightaway passed the final order dated 12.04.2012 and awarded punishment of two Black Marks to petitioner. 4. Being aggrieved, the original petitioner filed writ application being W.P.(S). No.7870/2012, challenging the punishment order which was disposed of by giving liberty to petitioner to prefer an appeal. Thereafter, the original petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority which was allowed in part and punishment of one Black mark was imposed and further directing that the original petitioner was entitled for subsistence allowance only during the period of suspension. 5. Aggrieved by the decision, the original petitioner has preferred the present writ application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the instant writ application, the original petitioner namely, Ashok Kumar Tiwary died on 24.04.2021 and consequently, his wife Priya Tiwary was impleaded as petitioner vide order dated 08.07.2024. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appellate authority failed to appreciate that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report after considering the show cause and documentary evidences filed by the petitioner and after considering the deposition and cross examination of the witnesses and there was no occasion for the disciplinary authority to differ with the enquiry report. He further submits that as per the settled principles of service jurisprudence, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to issue second show cause to the original-petitioner mentioning the ground of difference with the enquiry report and giving the delinquent officer proper opportunity to submit his specific reply to the second show cause notice. 2025:JHHC:17072 3 The failure of the Disciplinary Authority in issuing second show cause notice to the original-petitioner seriously prejudiced his case as his constitutional and legal right is taken away by the Disciplinary Authority. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the original- petitioner came on duty after a long absence of 670 days and almost it was a case of dismissal and the order passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority suffer from no illegality. However, learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that 2nd show-cause notice was not given to the delinquent employee before differing with the report of the Enquiry Officer and also, he could not dispute the fact that Enquiry Officer has exonerated the original-petitioner. 9. Thus, admittedly, the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the husband of the petitioner. However, without differing with the opinion of the Enquiry Officer and without issuing the 2nd show-cause notice as to why he differed with the opinion of the Enquiry Officer, the husband of the petitioner had been awarded punishment which is against the settled law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vr. Kunj Behari Misra1. The relevant portion is quoted herein below: “19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” 10. Normally, in such type cases which suffers from procedural irregularity; matter should have been remanded to the stage of non- compliance of natural justice: however, in the instant case, since delinquent employee has already expired and now, the present petitioner who has been substituted in place of original petitioner-delinquent employee, no order for remand can be issued. 1 (1998) 7 SCC 84 2025:JHHC:17072 4 11. Accordingly, the impugned orders, are hereby, quashed and the respondents are directed to pay the entire consequential benefits within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A., if any, is also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) kunal/- AFR