2025:JHHC:17859 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.253 of 2019 ------- Bidesh Kumar Pandey, Son of Sri Komal Pandey, aged about 36 years, Resident of Village- Selori, P.O & P.S. Tarhasi, Palamau, Jharkhand. ...… Petitioner Versus 1. The state of Jharkhand. 2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand Ranchi, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Singhbhoom (Kolhan) Range Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa, Dist- East Singbhoom. 4. Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan, P.O. & P.S.-Seraikella, Dist- Seraikella-Kharsawan. 5. Police Inspector Cum Officer-In-Charge, Adityapur Police Station Cum Conducting Officer, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, Dist- East Singhbhoom. …. Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, Adv. : Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, Adv. For the Res. State : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to G.A.I ------- 09/Dated:02.07.2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following relief:- (i) to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.09.2015 passed by Respondent no.4 Superintendent of Police, Seraikella- Kharsawan in departmental proceeding no.-01/2015 communicated to the petition vide memo no. 3940 dated 28.09.2015 as contained in annexure-4, to this writ application. Whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been found guilty and the petition has rejected on the basic salary for two years on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer. (ii) To issue further appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the appellate order issue by the respondent no. 3- deputy inspector general of police Singhbhoom (Kolhan) Range, vide memo no. 797 dated 06.05.2016 communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 715 dated 18.05.2016 as contained in annexure 6 & 6/1 to this writ application, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner 2025:JHHC:17859 2 has been rejected without considering the points raised therein. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner summits that apart from other grounds, one of the grounds is non-supply of inquiry report to the petitioner before imposing punishment, which has highly prejudiced the case of the petitioner. 3. In reply to the same, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the matter may be remitted to the disciplinary authority with a direction to proceed in accordance with law. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly since the inquiry report has not been served to the petitioner, which has been specifically stated in paragraph number 10 of the writ application and also coupled with the fact that the learned counsel for the respondent- State himself submits that this case can be remitted to the disciplinary authority. The impugned order, is hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority with a direction to serve the inquiry report and thereafter proceed in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ application, is hereby disposed off. Pending I.A, if any also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-