2025:JHHC:20793 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2853 of 2025 ---------- Rakesh Kumar, son of Karu Mistri, resident of village Jolha Bigha, P.O. & P.S. Tekari, District Gaya, State Bihar. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Police Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP), Ranchi, Raja Rani Kothi, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. The Commandant, I.R.B.-08, Godda, Camp-Poreyahat, P.O. & P.S. Poreyahat, District Godda. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, AC to GA-V ---------- 03/ 29.07.2025 Instant writ application has been filed with following reliefs: I. For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction from this Hon'ble Court in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Wireless-Messages contained in ORG No. 454 dated 31.03.2022 passed by Respondent No. 4 (Annexure-12) wherein the petitioner has been informed that he has dismissed from service w.e.f. 28.03.2022 in Department Proc. No. 08 of 2021 of this unit vide F.O. No. 195/22 dated 28.03.2022. II. For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction from this Hon'ble Court in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Force Order No. 88 of 2024 contained in Memo No. 183 dated 20.01.2024 issued by Respondent No. 4 (Annexure-14), wherein Respondent No. 3 rejected the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner. III. For further issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction from this Hon'ble Court in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent no. 2 to consider the Revision Application of the petitioner in accordance with the law as the same is still pending before the Respondent no. 1. 2025:JHHC:20793 2 IV. Upon quashing and setting aside the above punishment orders dated 28.03.2022 and 20.01.2024, for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon'ble Court in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. V. For further issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction from this Hon'ble Court in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner under Rule 96 of Jharkhand Service Code for the period the petitioner kept under suspension vide Suspension Force Order No. 665/2021 contained in Memo No. 1225 dated 14.08.2021 issued by Respondent no. 4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable in the year 2019 and was posted at I.R.B.-08, Godda. He further submits that on 06.09.2020, the petitioner went on leave for 10 days and was supposed to join his duty on 17.09.2020 but unfortunately, on 11.09.2020, he was taken into custody in connection with Tekari P.S. Case No. 203 of 2019 registered under Section 304-B of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code and he remained in custody since the date of acquittal i.e. on 13.02.2025. Learned counsel further submits that while the petitioner was in judicial custody, a departmental proceeding was contemplated against him for unauthorized leave and finally, he has been dismissed from service vide order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure-12). He contended that since the petitioner was not in a position to participate in the departmental proceeding, he requested the department to stay the departmental proceeding till the petitioner gets bail or gets acquitted but the respondents failed to adhere to his request and in one sentence, he was dismissed; no reasoning, whatsoever, was given. As such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the show-cause was duly served to the petitioner in jail custody to which the petitioner duly replied and as such, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice has not been followed while issuing the order of dismissal. However, he could 2025:JHHC:20793 3 not defend the impugned order to be a reasoned order because certainly it was one sentence dismissal order which was sent to the petitioner through wireless message. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 08.06.2019 as constable at I.R.B.-08, Godda. On 06.09.2020, he proceeded on leave which was duly sanctioned for 10 days and the petitioner was supposed to return and join his duty on 17.09.2020. However, while he was on leave, on 11.09.2020 he was taken into judicial custody and unfortunately, he remained in judicial custody till the date of his acquittal i.e., 13.02.2025. 5. The facts further reveal that in between the period of custody of the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was contemplated for unauthorized leave and also for not informing the Department about pendency of a criminal case against him. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner could not attend the departmental proceeding physically as he was in judicial custody. 6. At this stage, it is also pertinent to be indicated that finally on 13.02.2025, the petitioner has been honourably acquitted as is evident from the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Gaya (Bihar) in S.T. No. 96/2023 (SJ). For brevity paras-22 to 24 of the said order are quoted here-in-below: “22. After having appreciating the entire evidence on record, the legal provisions and the settled judicial precedence, this Court arrived at the conclusion that prosecution has not been successful in proving the charge framed u/s 302/34 of I.P.C and 304(B)/34 of I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt against any of the three accused persons. Therefore, all three accused persons namely 1. Rakesh Kumar, 2. Ramrati Devi and 3. Karu Mistri are entitled for getting benefit of doubt. Accordingly, all three accused persons namely 1. Rakesh Kumar, 2. Ramrati Devi and 3. Karu Mistri are acquitted from the charges u/s 302/34 of I.P.C and 304(B)/34 of I.P.C. 23. The Accused Rakesh Kumar son of Karu Mistri is already in judicial custody and he is present before the Court. As accused Rakesh Kumar is also acquitted from the charges framed against him, he is directed to be released forthwith. 2025:JHHC:20793 4 24. As all three accused persons are acquitted from the charges leveled against them therefore, the respective sureties of two acquitted accused Karu Mistri and Ramrati Devi who are already on bail are also discharged from their liabilities.” 7. Thus, it can be said that it was an honourable acquittal as prosecution failed to prove any of the charges levelled against this petitioner. On the other side, if we go through the impugned order of dismissal, interestingly in one sentence, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. For brevity, the termination order which has been served to the through wireless message is extracted here-in-below: “Constable-25 RAKESH KUMAR IRB-8 GODDA, Son of KARU MISTRI, village-Johlabigha, P.O.+P.S. Tekari, Dist.- GAYA(BIHAR), has been dismissed from service W.E.F. 28.03.2022 in Department Proc. No.-08/21 of this unit vide F.O.- No.195/22 Dated 28.03.2022(.) THIS IS FOR YOUR KIND INFORMATION AND N/A PLEASE.” 8. In view of the admitted fact, it is clear that the allegation in the charge-sheet was of unauthorized leave. However, in the concluding paragraph, it was written that the petitioner did not inform the authority with regard to pendency of one criminal case. Moreover, the impugned order does not speak a single word as to whether the punishment of dismissal has been imposed on what grounds. As referred to here-in-above, the impugned order of dismissal is of one sentence only. 9. It is not a case that the petitioner is a casual employee. Even otherwise, so far as the allegation of unauthorized absence is concerned; the same is misconceived in the attending facts of the case. As stated here-in- above, the petitioner was supposed to join till 17.09.2020; however, the petitioner was taken into custody on 11.09.2020 during his period of leave, which was admittedly authorized leave and from 11.09.2020 he remained in judicial custody till the date of his acquittal by the learned Addl. Session Judge. As such, there is no reason as to why the impugned order be not quashed and set aside. 2025:JHHC:20793 5 10. Interestingly, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate authority has considered the points raised by the petitioner but as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.1 that the appellate authority cannot substitute the reasons in the original order of dismissal. 11. Be that as it may, having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. It goes without saying that the petitioner has also prayed for subsistence allowance which has not been paid to him. The respondents are directed to pay the same because this is the legal right of the petitioner to get subsistence during the period of suspension. Accordingly, the same be paid within the aforesaid stipulated time. 13. The writ application is accordingly allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal 1 (2010) 13 SCC 427