2025:JHHC:30522 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5470 of 2021 ---- Chandan Dubey, Son of Sri Chandrashekhar Dwivedi, aged about 30 years, Presently Posted as Constable (273), Palamau District Force, Permanent Resident of Village Nawari, P.O. Murup, P.S. Latehar, District Latehar (Jharkhand). … Petitioners -versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Police Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range, Palamau, P.O. and P.S. Medininagar, District: Palamau. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Palamau, P.O. and P.S. Medininagar, District: Palamau. … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC IV ---- 12/ 24.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed to quash memo No. 3505 dated 28.07.2020 [Annexure-4] passed by Superintendent of Police, Palamau whereby the petitioner was imposed the order of punishment of censure and non-payment of the salary except amount of the subsistence allowance during suspension period to petitioner. Further, the petitioner prayed to quashing of memo No.946 dated 09.04.2022 [Annexure-9] whereby the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been confirmed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner also seeks direction upon the respondents to make payment the rest 50% amount to petitioner, which was not paid to petitioner pursuant to the order dated 28.07.2020. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was suspended for overstay vide memo No. 4320 dated 22.10.2019 and departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide memo No. 1177 dated 11.03.2020. The petitioner replied to the show cause stating that the delay in joining was due to illness but irrespective of his reply, the disciplinary authority, after proceeding, has passed the order of punishment of censure and non-payment of the salary except amount of the subsistence allowance during suspension period vide 2025:JHHC:30522 -: 2 :- memo No. 3505 dated 28.07.2020. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 20.01.2021 against the said order but the appellate authority has confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority and vide memo No. 946 dated 09.04.2022 rejected the said appeal. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide memo No. 3533 dated 30.11.2020 and the petitioner is posted as a Constable in the District Police Force, Palamau. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts forth his arguments stating that the petitioner was not given a chance to cross examine the witnesses during departmental enquiry and no second show cause nor enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner before passing of the punishment order. The counsel further submits that the penalty is excessive and disproportionate to the nature of alleged misconduct. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that though the petitioner has been punished with censure for violation of police discipline, dereliction of duty and negligence in responsibility, he has been paid the subsistence allowance for the entire suspension period. The counsel states that inspite of all the notices and reminders made to the petitioner, he has failed to submit his show cause reply. The counsel further submits that the petitioner is habitual in evading from duty either without grant of leave or without giving prior information to superior officers, thus, there is no ground to interfere in this application. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through records, I find that vide memo No.157/2020 dated 23.03.2020 as well as memo No.228/2020 dated 06.06.2020 the conducting officer of the Departmental Proceeding No.15 of 2020 had informed the petitioner for participating in the proceeding and also to submit his show-cause reply. Further, the informations were also made available to the petitioner on WhatsApp, but the petitioner neither took part in the proceeding nor submitted his reply. Thus, when the petitioner declined to take part in the proceedings and failed to remain present, he could not take the plea of violation of principles of natural justice as opportunity was given to him. 7. Further, it is well settled that the punishment awarded to the petitioner, unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review by the court. In the case of the petitioner, I find that, the punishment order of “censure” and non-payment of the salary except amount of the subsistence allowance during suspension is not disproportionate to the proved misconducts of the petitioner, which is of unauthorized absence. The 2025:JHHC:30522 -: 3 :- petitioner being a member of a disciplined force, i.e. Police Force is required to maintain discipline. Unauthorised absence/overstay is definitely a misconduct. It is well settled that High Courts have very limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 has held as under: “19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarized as follows: 19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge- sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the 2025:JHHC:30522 -: 4 :- charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” 8. In light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and observations made hereinabove and the facts of the case, I find no merit in this writ petition, calling for any interference with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority, which are under challenge in this writ petition. The punishment is not disproportionate to the proved misconduct, nor there is any violation of procedure. This writ petition, is accordingly, dismissed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Ranchi, dated 24th September, 2025 Kumar/Cp-02