2025:JHHC:13390 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 584 of 2012 Birendra Kumar, son of Sri Jagdish Prasad, resident of Village- Pratap Tand, P.O.- Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District – Vaishali; at present dismissed Constable from Bokaro, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Hqrs.), Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. Deputy Inspector General (Military Police), South Range, Ranchi. 5. Commandant, Jharkhand Military Police-IV, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, AC to SC (L&C)-III --- 15/02.05.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “a. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of certiorari from this Hon'ble Court for quashing the order vide memo number 179 dated 01.02.2003 whereby and whereunder the reconsideration of review petition on the question of quantum of punishment in terms of order passed by this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3897 of 1996 dated 12th August 1998 has been rejected and further the order of review passed by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in W.P.(S) No. 4790 of 2003 dated 17.09.2010 has not been considered and the punishment of dismissal has been affirmed. b. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) to the respondent authorities to reconsider the quantum of punishment which amounts to harsh in nature, in terms of allegation leveled against the petitioner for which he has been dismissed from the service by the respondents.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there have been several rounds of litigation and the matter only relates to raising false bill of Rs. 180/-. He has further submitted that the petitioner was 2025:JHHC:13390 2 initially appointed as constable way back on 13.12.1972 and the allegation regarding raising false bill was made in the year 1986. The petitioner was charge-sheeted vide charge-memo dated 11.05.1987. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated vide departmental proceeding no. 42 of 1987 and ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 4. Dismissal of the petitioner was challenged in the writ petition being CWJC No. 3358 of 1989 which was disposed of vide order dated 02.05.1989 whereby the concerned authority was directed to pass fresh order after granting an opportunity of hearing. The appeal was also dismissed by the concerned authority vide order dated 26.08.1989. The petitioner filed revision/memorial before the competent authority, but the same was also dismissed. 5. The petitioner ultimately filed writ petition being CWJC No. 3897 of 1996(R) which was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.08.1998. However, there was an observation that the petitioner can very well file a review petition before the Director General of Police. The review petition was also dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2003. The same was subject matter of writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4790 of 2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order dated 17.09.2010 passed in the said writ petition, this Court directed the Director General of Police to decide the review petition in the light of observation made by Hon’ble Patna High Court vide order dated 12.08.1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3897 of 1996(R) as the State of Jharkhand has been reorganized. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that fresh order has been passed on 17.03.2011 as contained in annexure- 5 to this writ petition whereby the review petition has been rejected. He submits that the fresh order dated 17.03.2011 has not been challenged in this writ petition and what is under challenge is the earlier order dated 01.02.2003 which was subject matter of writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4790 of 2003. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent- State, on the other hand, has referred to paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the counter-affidavit. 2025:JHHC:13390 3 8. This Court is of the considered view that the order dated 01.02.2003 was challenged before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4790 of 2003. In the said writ petition, a direction was issued for passing fresh order on the review petition on account of reorganization of the State of Jharkhand. Fresh order has already been passed vide order dated 17.03.2011 (Annexure-5) by citing reasons. The order dated 17.03.2011 (Annexure-5) having not been challenged and in view of the fact that the order dated 01.02.2003 has already been taken care of by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4790 of 2003 by issuing a direction to pass a fresh order of review, no relief as prayed for by the writ petitioner in this writ petition can be granted. 9. Consequently, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also dismissed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj