2025:JHHC:21319 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 5351 of 2021 ---------- Ashutosh Kumar, son of Naresh Prasad Singh, resident of Ramnagar, P.O. Manpur, P.S. Muffassil, District Gaya-823003. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Excise Department, Utpad Bhawan, Second Floor, Excise Building, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834008. 2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Ltd., Utpad Bhavan, Bhutal, New Police Centre, Near Chief Minister’s Secretariat, Kanke Road, P.S. Gonda, P.O. Kanke, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834008. 3. The General Manager (Operations), Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Ltd., Utpad Bhavan, Bhutal, New Police Centre, Near Chief Minister’s Secretariat, Kanke Road, P.S. Gonda, P.O. Kanke, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834008. 4. The General Manager (Finance), Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Ltd., Utpad Bhavan, Bhutal, New Police Centre, Near Chief Minister’s Secretariat, Kanke Road, P.S. Gonda, P.O. Kanke, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834008. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr. Yogendra Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Uttam Kr. Das, AC to GP-VI For the JSBCL : Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate ---------- 14/ 28.07.2025 In the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing order No. 8 dated 08.10.2020 (Annexure-7), passed by respondent No. 3 in view of the fact that the respondent No. 3 is incompetent authority for passing the order of termination of services of the petitioner in view of hierarchy and the organizational chart of the respondent-Organization. Further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as the termination of his services at the behest of the respondents were in contravention of settled principles of law. 2025:JHHC:21319 2 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed vide appointment letter on 03.01.2017 on the post of Depot Manager by Respondent no.2 and he was posted at the Koderma Depot. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred to Khunti Depot as Depot Manager Beverages Corporation, Khunti vide letter dated 24.10.2019. While the petitioner was serving at Khunti; he was apprehended with liquor by the Police and Khunti P.S. Case No. 135/2020 was lodged against the petitioner. The petitioner was granted bail by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Khunti vide order dated 13.10.2020. Subsequently, petitioner was served with a show-cause notice and he was asked to submit his show-cause within three days. This Court stayed the criminal proceedings in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 135 of 2020. The petitioner thereafter terminated from service vide Order dated 08.10.2020 holding that the petitioner was engaged in illegal activities. Thereafter, petitioner made representation before the respondents and requested for re-consideration of his case; however, all went in vain. Hence this Writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been terminated on the basis of enquiry but in the enquiry proceeding, he was never called and only on the basis of his arrest in a criminal case wherein he was subsequently bailed-out and the criminal case is still pending, the petitioner has been terminated by a stigmatic order taking the basis of an enquiry which was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation & Anr. [(1999) 2 SCC 21]. He further relied upon order passed by this Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(S). No. 3702 of 2021], reported in 2024 SCC Online Jhar 3887. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner was a temporary/contractual employee and there was a specific condition in the appointment letter that his services can be terminated at any time. He 2025:JHHC:21319 3 further contented that the respondents have followed the principle of natural justice by issuing a show-cause notice and the petitioner has duly replied to the same. As such, in the case of temporary employee like this petitioner; no interference is required. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, admittedly; an enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner for the offence alleged in the criminal case wherein the petitioner has been bailed-out and the criminal case is still pending and it is also evident that the impugned order is stigmatic in nature; as such, simple issuance of show-cause will not suffice as the principle of natural justice has not been followed. Reliance in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala1, the relevant paras of which is extracted herein below: 10. In Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, the Court observed thus: (SCC p. 528, para 21) “21. One of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive is to see whether prior to the termination there was (a) a full-scale formal enquiry (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a finding of guilt. If all three factors are present the termination has been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order. Conversely if any one of the three factors is missing, the termination has been upheld.” 11. In the present case, all the three elements are attracted, as a result of which it must follow that the stated order is ex facie stigmatic and punitive. Such an order could be issued only after subjecting the incumbent to a regular inquiry as per the service rules……….” 7. It further transpires that enquiry was conducted behind the back of petitioner and he was not afforded any opportunity to present his case and law in this regard has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment of Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd.2, the relevant paras of which reads as under: “3. The appellant was working in the respondent-Corporation as Senior Accountant from 27-7-1970. On 17-7-1973, he was appointed as Branch Manager and posted at the Meerut Division of the respondent-Corporation and transferred to various places. He was posted at Faizabad as Branch Manager on 3-10-1975 and while he was working there, he received a letter dated 12-1- 1976 from the Managing Director on 15-1-1976 alleging that one person by the name of Jai Chandra Lal complained that the appellant had fraudulently taken Rs 2000 from him and that the appellant should therefore offer his explanation. The appellant denied the allegation and submitted his explanation on 22-1- 1976. Thereafter no disciplinary enquiry was conducted nor was any oral 1 (2020) 12 SCC 426 2 (1999) 2 SCC 21 2025:JHHC:21319 4 enquiry in the presence of the appellant conducted. It appears that a report dated 22-1-1976 was submitted by one Shri Ram Pal Singh, General Manager (Fertiliser) without issuing any charge-memo or giving a hearing. A copy of the report was also not given to the appellant. Thereafter, on 23-1-1976, a simple order of termination was passed stating that the appellant had been appointed as Branch Manager by order dated 17-7-1973, and Condition 3 of the appointment order provided that the services of the appellant could be terminated at any time, after giving one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof and that his services were being terminated with immediate effect in terms of the aforementioned Condition 3 of the appointment order. It was stated that the appellant could obtain one month's pay from the General Manager (Fertiliser), Lucknow. 34. But in cases where the termination is preceded by an enquiry and evidence is received and findings as to misconduct of a definitive nature are arrived at behind the back of the officer and where on the basis of such a report, the termination order is issued, such an order will be violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the purpose of the enquiry is to find out the truth of the allegations with a view to punish him and not merely to gather evidence for a future regular departmental enquiry. In such cases, the termination is to be treated as based or founded upon misconduct and will be punitive. These are obviously not cases where the employer feels that there is a mere cloud against the employee's conduct but are cases where the employer has virtually accepted the definitive and clear findings of the enquiry officer, which are all arrived at behind the back of the employee — even though such acceptance of findings is not recorded in the order of termination. That is why the misconduct is the foundation and not merely the motive in such cases. (Emphasis supplied) 8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and discussions made hereinabove, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order No. 8 dated 08.10.2020 (Annexure-7), is hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the competent authority to initiate a fresh proceeding after reinstating the petitioner by following the principle of natural justice by passing a fresh order. 9. It goes without saying that if the fresh proceedings is not completed by passing any order within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; it would be deemed that the Respondents are not interested in continuing the proceedings and the Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits; which shall be paid to him within a further period of 2 weeks. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.AA., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) kunal/- AFR