2025:JHHC:24688 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 467 of 2011 --------- Ramakant Mishra S/o Late Ramraj Mishra Retired Mines Manager, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Semra Lime Stone Project, Daltonganj Project Office, Medini Nagar, Palamau-822101 resident of L.I.G., R-273, At & P.O. Harmu Housing Colony, P.S. Argora, Town & District Ranchi-834012 (Jharkhand). ......Petitioner Versus 1. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Nepal House Area, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Town & District Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) through its Managing Director. 2. The Establishment Incharge, Head Office, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Nepal House Area, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Town & District Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand). .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-JSMDC : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate Ms. Monalisa Singh, Advocate --------- 13/Dated:-21.08.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: a. For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 03.06.2010 of the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation as contained in Memo No.890 Ranchi dated 03.06.2010 (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) through which it has been ordered against the applicable provisions of law and also without adhering to the due process of law that an amount of Rs. 136257.00 be deducted from the consolidated amount of leave encashment and the arrears of salary of the petitioner on account of the price of the shortage of mineral stock of different projects between the year 1982-83 to 1999-2000. b. For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents: - (i) To refund the amount of Rs.136257.00 which has illegally been recovered from the petitioner out of the consolidated amount of his leave encashment and the arrears of salary and that too, without observing the due process of law. (ii) To pay the statutory and penal interest for five months (from 01.03.2009 to 31.07.2009) on the delayed payment of the amount of gratuity. 2025:JHHC:24688 2 (iii) To pay the statutory and penal interest for 17 months (from 01.03.2009 to 31.07.2010) on the delayed payment of the amount of leave encashment. (iv) To pay the statutory and penal interest on the aforesaid withheld amount of Rs. 136257.00 from 01.03.2009 to till the date the said amount is paid. (v) To pay the exemplary cost of litigation for unnecessarily harassing the petitioner against the applicable provisions of law. 3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after his retirement, a punishment order has been passed for the offence committed in the financial year 1982-83 to 1999-2000 which is not permissible in view of the fact that any order having civil consequences cannot be passed ignoring Rule 43B and/or 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rules; as such, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though there is some discrepancy in the order and since the matter is very old, the original record cannot be ascertained now, but the fact remains that the petitioner did not reply to the second show cause notice and even it is apparent from the impugned order that a paper publication was made so that the petitioner could get the information. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has refused to accept the notice. Learned counsel lastly submits that since the petitioner has not availed the appellate remedy of filing appeal before the concerned authority; as such, the writ may be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy by filing appeal. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially, the observation made in the impugned order that 2025:JHHC:24688 3 the petitioner refused to accept notice and even after paper publication in Hindustan Times of Ranchi and Prabhat Khabar, he did not file any reply to the show cause; therefore, interest of justice would be sufficed by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal in accordance with law before the concerned authority. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned authority within a period of eight weeks from today; and if the appeal is filed within the stipulated time, the concerned authority shall take a decision in the matter within a further period of 12 weeks. It goes without saying that since the matter is pending before this Court; the issue of limitation shall be dealt with by the concerned appellate authority in the background of this fact. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-