IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6362 of 2022 ----- Anil Kumar, S/o Sri Madan Mohan Mishra ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Inspector General of Jharkhand Armed Police, Raja Rani Kothi, Doranda, Ranchi 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Jharkhand Armed Police, Raja Rani Kothi, Doranda, Ranchi 4.The Commandant Jharkhand Armed Police 2, Tatisilwai, P.O. & P.S. Tatisilwai, Ranchi ------ Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra, Advocate For the Resp-State : Ms. Divyam AC to SC-Iv …...... 06 / 27.01.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner in this writ petition has prayed to direct the respondents to initiate a disciplinary action against Constable Sanjeev Ranjan (constable 145) on the ground that he has made false allegation against him, for which, the petitioner has faced a departmental proceeding. 3. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the allegation of committing theft of some letters and also on the ground that he has abused his superior officials and others. Ultimately after the matter came to the High Court and remanded again, the petitioner was reprimanded as the charge of misbehavior was found to be proved, but there was no material to prove that the petitioner had stolen any letters. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that since the said Constable Sanjeev Ranjan had alleged that the petitioner has stolen the letters and there was no proof that the petitioner has done so, thus, Constable Sanjeev Ranjan needs to be proceeded against departmentally for falsely making allegation against the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the allegation of theft and on the ground that the petitioner has abused the superior official. Though the theft was not proved yet the fact that the petitioner has abused the superior and misbehaved has been proved for which the petitioner has been reprimanded in the departmental proceeding. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was false allegation against the petitioner of commission of theft, for which, he had faced the departmental proceeding, which resulted in his defamation. On this ground, he prays that Constable Sanjeev Ranjan be departmentally proceeded. 7. This cannot be a ground to departmentally proceed against Constable Sanjeev Ranjan. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he may file a suit for damages claiming damages from him. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S.