2025:JHHC:10464 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.5721 of 2017 ----- Md. Imran, Constable No. 1688, son of Md. Salim, resident of village Kotal Adda, PO Brahmdiha, PS Topchachi, District Dhanbad … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2.The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Range, PO and PS Chas, District Bokaro 4.The Senior Superintendent of Police, PO, PS and District Dhanbad … Respondents. CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Dr. Hasnain Waris, Advocate Ms. Reshma Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sushant Kumar, AC to SC-II …...... 14 /24.03.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order as contained in Memo No. 6268 dated 20.10.2016 (signed on 19.05.2017) whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Further he has challenged the appellate order vide Memo No. 456 dated 19.05.2017 whereby the order of dismissal has been upheld. 3. A short point has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the entire departmental proceeding the petitioner did not get an opportunity to participate in any manner as admittedly the petitioner was in custody and the notices were sent to his residential house. He was not in a position to appear in the departmental proceeding either to answer the charge or to cross examine the witnesses. He further submits that even the departmental chargesheet was also not served upon the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the notices and the chargesheet were sent to the residential address of the petitioner but admits that during the entire period he was in custody. The petitioner was the Constable in Jharkhand Police. A criminal case was instituted against him by prosecutrix who happens to be one of the relatives of this petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that on the pretext of marriage he had established sexual relationship with the prosecutrix. A case was instituted under sections 2025:JHHC:10464 2 376, 306, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of POCSO Act. The case was registered as Kanke PS Case No. 135 of 2014 corresponding to GR No. 5058 of 2014. 5. The girl alleged that on the pretext of marriage this petitioner for two years have sexually exploited her. The petitioner surrendered before the trial Court on 23.06.2015 and an information about surrender on 23.06.2015 was given on the same date to the Superintendent of Police which was duly received on 27.06.2015. The department issued departmental chargesheet to the petitioner and admittedly the same was issued in the village address of the petitioner. This fact is admitted and evident from Annexure-D to the supplementary counter affidavit which is the postal receipt which suggests that the same was sent to Topchanchi. Admittedly from the records it is clear that the memo of charge was also not served and the entire departmental proceeding was held when the petitioner was in custody. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 07.01.2017. The inquiry report is dated 05.10.2015 which would suggests that the inquiry was conducted in absence of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner admittedly was not granted an opportunity to defend himself or to answer the charge which was levelled against him. The entire departmental proceeding was held behind his back which is in violation of the principal of natural justice. Thus since there is violation of principal of natural justice, I am inclined to set-aside the entire departmental proceeding including the order of punishment and the appellate order and the revisional order. 7. The respondents will be at liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner will be reinstated and liberty is given to the respondents to initiate a departmental proceeding and proceed after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. So far as the question of backwages is concerned, it will be open to the respondents to decide the aforesaid issue. 9. This writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid direction. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/