p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 692 of 2023 (with I.A. No. 141 of 2024) Pramod Kumar, aged about 60 years, son of late Ram Chandra Sahu, Resident of Village – Baniyadih, P.O.- Baniyadih, P.S. – thakur Gangri, District – Godda, State – Jharkhand. ... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi; 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, having its office at P.O., P.S, and District Godda. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda, having its office at P.O, P.S, and District Godda. 5. The District Welfare Officer, Godda, having its office at P.O., P.S. and District Godda. 6. District Education Officer, Godda, having its office at P.O., P.S. and District Godda. 7. District Superintendent of Education, Godda, having its office at P.O., P.S. and District Godda. ... Respondents/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellant: Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, A.C. to G.A.-V --------- 04/Dated: 17.03.2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral) I.A. No.141 of 2024 1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 33 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7232 of 2019. Page 2 of 3 2. Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, A.C. to learned G.A.-V appearing for the respondents-State, has no objection to the condonation of the said period of delay. 3. Therefore, this application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 692 of 2023 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State. 5. The judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of termination dt. 03.11.2018 passed by respondent No.3 does not appear to be correct, since the said respondent had not supplied the copy of the enquiry report in spite of an order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5299 of 2012 on 30.11.2016. 6. The learned Single Judge also erred in holding that the appellant was dismissed after giving full opportunity to defend himself, because, such a conclusion cannot be arrived at when the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the appellant. 7. The view of the learned Single Judge that the order passed in the earlier round of litigation merged with the order passed in the Contempt application is also not correct, because, admittedly the Contempt Case was simply closed on 25.04.2019 without any reasoned order being passed therein, and the principle of merger would apply only to an order passed in a Letters Patent Appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court or an order passed by the Supreme Court. 8. Therefore, the orders of termination dt. 24.05.2012 and 03.11.2018 passed by the 3rd respondent are both set aside; the p. 3 respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant into service forthwith and pay him the wages from 03.11.2018, till date. The respondents are also directed to scrupulously comply with the order dt. 30.11.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5299 of 2012, if they desire to hold a de novo enquiry from the stage of supplying the copy of the enquiry report. 9. The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Manoj/ Pramanik/Cp.2