2025:JHHC:36392 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.4842 of 2021 ----- Sanjay Kumar, S/o Shri Nand Kishore Prasad, R/o Basant Vihar Colony, Koyla Nagar, P.O. Saraidhella, P.S. Saraidhella, District Dhanbad .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary having his office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi 2.Kolhan University through its Vice-Chancellor having its office at Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum 3.Registrar, Kolhan University, having its office at Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum 4.Ghatshila College, Kolhan University, at Ghatshila, P.O. Ghatshila, P.S. Ghatshila, District East Singhbhum 5.Ravi Ranjan Kumar, R/o Kishore Enclave, Patel Nagar, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi, working as Assistant Professor, Ghatshila College, P.O. Ghatshila, P.S. Ghatshila, District East Singhbhum … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate For the Resp-State : Mr. Kanishka Deo, AC to G.P.-IV For the Resp- KU : Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, Advocate …...... 05/ 04.12.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner herein has prayed for a direction upon the respondent- University to initiate a departmental proceeding against respondent No.5, on the ground that respondent No.5 has suppressed material facts about his detention in connection with the criminal case. 3. During the course of the argument, it has been stated by the petitioner that this petitioner had filed a criminal case against one Manoj Kumar Sood and Others being Balidih P.S. Case No. 206 of 2019 and in that case, bail was granted to Manoj Kumar Sood and this respondent No.5 stood as a bailer for him as there was a condition that one of the bailer should be a Government servant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondent No.5 was employee of University and thus, being a Government Servant, he stood as a bailer. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.5 is an accused in Chas P.S. Case No.340 of 2019 and the aforesaid fact has been suppressed by him while seeking employment in Kolhan University. Thus, this petitioner has approached this Court praying for a mandamus to direct the University to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 5. After hearing the parties and from the aforesaid fact, I get an impression that to wreak vengeance, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Since respondent No.5 stood as a bailer of a person against whom this petitioner has lodged a criminal case, thus, the petitioner has filed this petition with same oblique motive. 6. Further, this Court sitting in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue mandamus upon an authority to initiate a departmental proceeding against any person. Whether to initiate a departmental proceeding or not is the sole discretion of the employer which cannot be influenced by any one. 7. In my opinion, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be utilized for the purpose which the petitioner is seeking by filing this petition. 8. Thus, this writ petition being fully misconceived is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 04th December, 2025 R.S./