2025:JHHC:14882-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.49 of 2025 ----- The Managing Director, JHASCOLAMF Ltd. Purulia Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand through its Managing Director Prakash Kumar, s/o Ramjee Singh, Address- Satyam Apartment, Edalhatu, Bariyatu, Morabadi, P.O. & P.S. Bariyatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand .......... Appellant. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Surendra Pandey, s/o Late Hari Nandan Pandey, resident of Chaibagan, Namkum, P.O. Khijri, P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Secretary, Department of Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Department of Co- operative Societies, Engineer’s Hostel, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The District Audit Officer, Co-operative Societies, Engineer’s Hostel, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. The District Co-operative Officer, Vikash Bhawan, Kutchary Road, P.O. GPO, Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 7. The Development Officer (Marketing), JHASCOLAM Ltd. Purulia Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate : Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I For the Res. No.2 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate ----- Order No.02 Date: 10.06.2025 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 26th September, 2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.5304 of 2021. 2. The appellant herein is the 6th respondent before the learned Single Judge. It is a Society registered under the Jharkhand Co- operative Societies Act, 1935. The 2nd respondent had been appointed as a Laboratory Assistant by the appellant in the said 2025:JHHC:14882-DB 2 Society. An F.I.R. was lodged against him on 8th March, 2011 by the appellant before the Officer-in-Charge, Namkum Police Station, Ranchi for alleged misappropriation of Seed Lac Products of Rs.78 lakhs by committing fraud and forgery. The F.I.R. No.50 of 2011 then came to be registered under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Thereafter, the Administrative Officer of the Society issued a memo dated 20th May, 2011 directing the 2nd respondent and another to submit show cause in respect of charges levelled in the F.I.R. 4. The 2nd respondent submitted reply to the show cause notice on 23rd May, 2011. 5. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent was suspended on 24th May, 2011 by the appellant. 6. The charge memo was then issued to the 2nd respondent and departmental proceedings were initiated. The District Co- Operative Officer, Ranchi was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On 1st September, 2012, the District Co-operative Officer, Ranchi submitted report exonerating the 2nd respondent of the charges levelled against him. 7. The appellant, not being satisfied with the opinion of the Enquiry Officer directed the Enquiry Officer to re-enquire, but again the Enquiry Officer gave the same finding. 8. Thereafter, the Managing Director, being the Disciplinary Authority, did not accept the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, differed with it and appointed the 7th respondent as Enquiry 2025:JHHC:14882-DB 3 Officer and directed him to conduct the departmental proceeding afresh against the 2nd respondent. 9. The 7th respondent this time found the 2nd respondent guilty of charges. 10. A second show cause notice was issued to the 2nd respondent, who denied the charges and ultimately, in a meeting of the Board of Directors dated 17th June, 2014, the services of the 2nd respondent were terminated and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 5th July, 2014. 11. The 2nd respondent challenged it in W.P.(S) No.4996 of 2014. 12. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11th January, 2021, the order of dismissal dated 5th July, 2014 was quashed; and the matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice. 13. Though the Disciplinary Authority issued a fresh show cause notice, gave an opportunity to the 2nd respondent and passed a fresh order on 21st June, 2021 which is Annexure-11 to the present appeal, a reading of the said order indicates that there was no independent application of mind to either the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent, or the explanation of the 2nd respondent, or the evidence adduced in the disciplinary enquiry, and no fresh reasons have been given, except the reason that previously on 17th June, 2014 the Board of Directors had approved the termination of service of the 2nd respondent. 2025:JHHC:14882-DB 4 14. Since there was no fresh application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority as directed by this Court in its order passed on 11th January, 2021 in W.P.(S) No.4996 of 2014 when the petitioner challenged the order of termination dated 21st June, 2021 in W.P.(S) No.5304 of 2021, the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 21st June, 2021, and since the 2nd respondent had already retired, he held that there cannot be any order for reinstatement, but directed payment to the 2nd respondent of all other consequential benefits. 15. In the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge had categorically held that the appellant had not acted in accordance with the order passed on 11th January, 2021 by this Court in W.P.(S) No.4996 of 2014. He also categorically held that the previous order of termination had been affirmed in the order dated 21st June, 2021 mechanically and, therefore, the said order required interference by the Court. 16. We see no reason to disagree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. 17. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 18. No cost. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/Rohit