IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 694 of 2023 ---- Dinesh Kumar, aged about 44 years, Son of Nandeo Ram @ Nanddev Ram, Resident of Village Bedani Khurd, P.O. and P.S.- Tarhasi, District-Palamau ...Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Home and Disaster Management, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2. Director General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Region, Palamau at Daltonganj, having its office at Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau 4. Superintendent of Police, Palamau, Medininagar having its office at Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau ….Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ---- For the Appellant : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar , Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV ---- Reserved on 10.02.2025 Pronounced on 20/02/2025 Per Deepak Roshan, J. This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P(S) No. 4802 of 2021, whereby the claim of the petitioner for quashing the dismissal order passed by Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant in gist has made the following submissions before the Writ Court: (i) Though the matter was remitted back to the respondents for considering the same on the point of quantum of punishment but in spite of the same, the order of the Court was not considered and the earlier order passed by the respondents has been reiterated. (ii) It was further submitted by learned counsel before the writ court that though 8 persons were similarly situated to the petitioner, but they have been granted lesser punishment and the appellant along with one another has been slapped with the punishment of dismissal, which is admittedly a harsh punishment. 3. After perusing the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has not deliberated any contention of the petitioner-appellant and after referring to several decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court, dismissed the claim of the appellant. In fact, learned Writ Court has not given any finding as to whether and under what circumstances those judgments would be applicable and simply held that no interference was warranted and the writ petition was dismissed. No finding, whatsoever, has been given by the learned Single Judge why the case of this appellant is different from the other co-employees who were also charged but have been given lesser punishment. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it appropriate to remit this case back to the Single Judge to hear the case on merit and pass an appropriate order. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Single Judge for reconsideration. 5. As a result, the instant appeal stands disposed of. Pending I.As, if any, also stands disposed of. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Jk