2025:JHHC:29314 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2699 of 2021 ---- Chandan Kumar, S/o Surendra Yadav, resident of Village Chatar Bagaicha, Near Balvikash Vidhyalaya, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District- Lohardaga, Jharkhand-835302. … Petitioner -versus- 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Primary Education Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at M.D.I Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagganathpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004 3. Director, Primary Education Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at M.D.I Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagganathpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004 4. Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, having its office at NIC Office, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, Lohardaga, Jharkhand-835302. 5. District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga, Government of Jharkhand having its office at 1st Floor, Pandey Ganpat Rai Bhawan, Collectorate Campus, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, Lohardaga, Jharkhand- 835302. 6. Block Education Extension Officer, Lohardaga, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at 1st Floor, Pandey Ganpat Rai Bhawan, Collectorate Campus, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, Lohardaga, Jharkhand- 835302. .… Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Rishi Bharti, AC to AAG ---- 04/ 16.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- I. A writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside termination order as contained in Memo No. 313 Lohardaga, dated 09.03.2021 (Annexure-14) whereby and whereunder the services of the Petitioner has been terminated by the Respondent authorities. II. A writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus issuing a direction upon the Respondent authorities for reinstating the Petitioner at the post he was appointed before the illegal termination of his services by the Respondent authorities. III. A writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus issuing a direction upon the Respondent authorities for making payment of arrears of salary to the Petitioner before the services of the Petitioner had been suspended by the Respondent authorities. 2025:JHHC:29314 2 3. The case of the petitioner as stated in the writ petition is that he applied for the post of Teacher in terms of advertisement published by State of Jharkhand on 19.04.2000 and got appointed vide memo No. 1182 dated 28.07.2000 and was posted in Government Primary School, Churua, Peshar, District-Lohardaga. On receiving complaint from villagers of Churua against the petitioner, the District Superintendent of Education, lohardaga constituted a committee to conduct an enquiry in the matter and issued a show cause vide memo No. 2012 dated 18.11.2016, to answer the charge of being absent from school for three / four years; and also for paying Rs.1000-1500 to one person for managing his job; and also for becoming the president upon removal of Bharat Oraon from the school management committee. On 21.02.2017, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice along with the copy of enquiry report dated 09.02.2017 and he was directed to file his reply within two days, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 02.03.2017. Further, vide memo No. 591 dated 28.03.2017, the petitioner was suspended and was directed to report in the office of Block Education Extension Officer during the period of suspension. Later on, vide memo No. 54 dated 04.04.2017, the petitioner was asked to give his joining in the office of Respondent No. 5 to which the petitioner gave his joining vide letter dated 06.4.2017. However, the respondent authorities issued a paper publication on 15.06.2020 asking the petitioner to give his joining to the post allocated to him during the suspension. Accordingly, the petitioner again gave his joining vide letter dated 01.07.2020 which was duly received. The petitioner made representations dated 10.08.2019, 25.09.2020 and 06.11.2020 to the authority to set aside his suspension. Thereafter, vide memo No. 795 dated 06.11.2020, a second show cause was served upon the petitioner on a completely different cause of action, to which the petitioner replied on 12.11.2020 taking defence of his serious medical condition and ongoing treatment. Finally, the respondent authorities terminated his services vide memo No. 313 dated 09.03.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself and has been terminated without framing of any charge without conducting a proper departmental enquiry or serving enquiry report. The counsel states that the petitioner received his salary and other allowance up to October 2016 but has received no salary from November 2016 till 28th March 2017, which is 2025:JHHC:29314 3 even before he was suspended on 28.03.2017. The counsel submits that as per letter no 862 dated 31.07.2019, the enquiry report was submitted on 09.02.2017 whereas the petitioner was suspended on 28.03.2017. The counsel further submits that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of being heard and hence, the respondent authorities have violated the principles of natural justice. He further submits that even the second show cause dated 06.11.2020 was served on a completely different set of allegation. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that despite being served with a show cause notice dated 18.11.2016, the petitioner did not submit his reply. The counsel states that the DSE Lohardaga had to immediately stop the salary of the petitioner due to the seriousness of the allegations. The petitioner was found absent during the inspection of the school on 18.01.2017. The counsel further submits that the petitioner remained absent from headquarter from 27.05.2017 till 01.07.2020 and again from 13.07.2020 till 21.09.2020 and again on 25.09.2020. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the records, I find that the copy of complaint was not served upon him and straight away the memo of charge was issued. It also transpired that vide memo No.1714 dated 27.11.2017 another memo of charge was issued to the petitioner and departmental enquiry was initiated. Vide letter dated 19.05.2018, 20.06.2018 and 01.11.2018 petitioner was asked to give his joining at the headquarter and to appear in the said departmental enquiry. The petitioner vide letter dated 12.011.2018 submitted his reply along with the medical prescriptions of the doctor related to his treatment and submitted that due to his ill health condition he was not able to join the head quarter. I find that the petitioner has brought on record the prescription of the doctor dated 15.06.2017 and certificate issued by the said doctor on 11.11.2018. However, the respondents issued the second show cause notice dated 06.11.2020 which contains different sets of charges. Without initiating a proceeding, upon aforesaid set of charges the petitioner was dismissed vide memo No. 313 dated 09.03.2021 for continuous absence from his office. This decision has been taken only on the ground that the explanation of the petitioner that he was absent due to illness has been found unsatisfactory and it was presumed that the petitioner has admitted his absence from the office. 2025:JHHC:29314 4 The court is of the view that the termination order bypassing a proper departmental enquiry is improper and illegal. The respondents did not allow the petitioner adequate opportunity to address to the allegations made against him as no departmental enquiry has been held. Without a departmental enquiry, the major punishment could not have been inflicted upon the petitioner. This caused prejudice to the petitioner and violated the principles of natural justice. This is also a procedural illegality. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Ram Prakash Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891 made reference to the case of State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 wherein it has been held as under: “29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee.” 7. In view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, I find that the said order of termination has been passed in a most arbitrary manner. The office order contained in Memo No. 313, dated 09.03.2021, terminating the petitioner's services, is hereby, quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner along with consequential benefits. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 9. Pending I.A(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj