2025:JHHC:31476 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5719 of 2017 --------- Lakhan Baitha, aged about 37 years, son of late Faguwa Baitha, Resident of Village Mishra Toli, P.O. & P.S. Tatisilve, District-Ranchi. .... Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2. Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarter, DPRD Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarter, DPRD Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. Commandant, Jharkhand Police Service-5, DTC Deoghar, S.P. Office, In front of SBI Bank (Sadhna Bhawan), P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar. .... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. For the Resp.-State : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V --------- 13/07.10.2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs; (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.06.2016 passed by the commandant, Jharkhand Police Service -5, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service of Police/177 in connection with Departmental Enquiry No. 6/16. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) seeking quashing of letter issued by the respondent no.4 Commandant, Jharkhand Police Force -5, Deoghar vide memo no. 1102/Ra ka dated 18.05.2017 whereby it is informed to the petitioner that appeal preferred by him was not considered since the same was time barred. And has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on its merit. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Police in Jharkhand Police Service with all consequential benefits in accordance with law. 2025:JHHC:31476 2 (iv) To pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case for the ends of justice or for grant of any other considerable relief to the petitioner. 2. The sole argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his appeal has been rejected in one line by stating that the appeal is time barred as per the Bihar Police Manual; as such the case may be remitted to the appellate authority to decide the case on merit. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner was dismissed from service after full-fledged enquiry and when he has filed the appeal after delay; there is no reason why the case should be remitted to the appellate authority and further no procedural irregularity has been committed by the respondent. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that a departmental proceeding was contemplated against this petitioner which was followed by the order of the dismissal. For the same charge, a criminal case was also instituted being Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 465 of 2015. Though the charges in both the criminal case and disciplinary proceedings were almost same and similar, the departmental proceeding continued and the petitioner has been terminated. 5. From the record, it further transpires that in the criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted vide order dated 03.01.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar (Annexure-6), but the said order was passed in the year 2023 and the petitioner preferred an appeal in 2017 i.e. prior to the decision by the concerned criminal 2025:JHHC:31476 3 court. 6. After going through the appellate order, it appears that the same has not been decided on its merit; as such interest of justice would be sufficed by directing the appellate authority (Respondent No.2) to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merit which is at Annexure-3 to the main writ application. It goes without saying that the concerned respondent shall decide the appeal on its merit ignoring the delay and also keeping in mind the acquittal of the petitioner, and pass an appropriate order within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Since the matter is very old, the petitioner is directed to serve the copy of the entire writ application, including counter-affidavit, supplementary affidavit (which contains the memo of appeal), and also the judgment passed by the competent criminal court, to the 2nd Respondent at the earliest. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) October 7, 2025 Amardeep/-