2025:JHHC:13275 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2580 of 2017 Prabhunath Singh, son of Late Anugrah Singh, resident of village- Alwalpur, P.O.-Alwalpur, P.S.-Gaurichak, District-Patna (Bihar). … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Police Head Quarter, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. Inspector General of Police (Training), Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand 5. Commandant, JAP-7, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand … … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC VI Mr. Rituraj, AC to SC VI --- 26/2nd May 2025 1. Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of 'Certiorari' for quashing the order dated 02.03.2006, bearing Memo No. 61/Go, passed by the Commandant, JAP-7, Hazaribagh, (Resp No.5), whereby and whereunder, the Petitioner was Compulsorily retired from service; and Order dated 03.10.2016, bearing Memo No. 385/D, passed by the Inspector General of Police (Training), Ranchi, (Resp No.3), Whereby the Memorial/Revision preferred by the petitioner as per the order of this Hon'ble Court, passed in WPS No. 6073 of 2008, has been rejected on the non est ground that the Memorial/revision is Time Barred', and thereby the order dated 02.03.2006, passed by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed. 2025:JHHC:13275 2 b) For a direction upon the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner back in service, along with the back wages and all other consequential benefits for which the Petitioner is entitled in accordance with law, after quashing the order of punishment of Compulsory Retirement. And c) Pass any other order/writ/direction as your Lordship may deem fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and accordance with law.” Arguments of the petitioner 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 02.03.2006 which was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6073 of 2008. However, the same was withdrawn after some argument vide order dated 25.06.2015 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority as per relevant provision of Police Manual. 4. The learned counsel submits that the petition in terms of Rule 853 of Jharkhand Police Manual was filed, but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2016 by holding that it was barred by limitation. The learned counsel has referred to Rule 853 of the Jharkhand Police Manual and submits that there is a period of six months prescribed to prefer the memorial but the petitioner had preferred the memorial pursuant to the order passed by this Court and therefore the same could not have been dismissed by stating that it was barred by limitation. The learned counsel has also submitted that the order of punishment of compulsory retirement dated 02.03.2006 is also under challenge in the present proceedings. 5. The learned counsel has relied upon Rule 843 of the Jharkhand Police Manual and has submitted that no enquiry as to the reason of not joining the duty was conducted and the disciplinary proceeding was held ex-parte. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was suffering from mental decease and therefore the absence was not willful and 2025:JHHC:13275 3 consequently the impugned order of compulsory retirement on account of absence from duty is fit to be set-aside. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6652 of 2014 decided on 21st March 2025. Arguments of the State 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the memorial was required to be filed within a period of six months and the order of compulsory retirement was 02.03.2006 and the writ petition itself was filed only in the year 2008, much after expiry of six months. He submits that the order passed by this Court dated 25.06.2015 in the earlier round of litigation whereby the writ petition was withdrawn, did not indicate that the delay was to be condoned. The learned counsel has also submitted that otherwise also the impugned order dated 02.03.2006 does not call for any interference. 7. The learned counsel submits that as per the charges levelled against the petitioner, he was asked to perform his duty on 04.01.2005, but he refused to perform his duty and then absented himself. It is not the case where the petitioner had taken leave and subsequently did not join the duty and therefore the provision of Rule 843 of the Jharkhand Police Manual is not attracted. He has also submitted that the previous records of the petitioner regarding overstayal and also absconding from duty was a part of the charge and the petitioner was punished four times earlier; twice minor punishment was imposed and twice major punishment was imposed. The learned counsel submits that no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Findings of this Court 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that as per the charge, the petitioner was asked to perform his duty on 04.01.2005, but instead of performing his duty, he ran away from the work and remained absent till his compulsory retirement on 02.03.2006. 2025:JHHC:13275 4 9. This Court also finds that the disciplinary proceedings was conducted and apparently the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings and the order of punishment of compulsory retirement was passed on 02.03.2006 by the disciplinary authority. The writ petition was itself filed after expiry of more than 2 years and ultimately, after some arguments, the writ petition was withdrawn with a liberty to approach the competent authority in terms of relevant provision of the Police Manual. The authority has ultimately dismissed the memorial as time barred. It is not in dispute that the prescribed period for filing memorial is six months as per Police Manual. There is no explanation from the side of the petitioner as to why the memorial was not filed within the prescribed period of 6 months from the order of punishment of compulsory retirement dated 02.03.2006. 10. Further, from perusal of the records of this case, it is not in dispute from the side of the petitioner that earlier also four punishments were inflicted upon the petitioner on account of overstayal or being absconder from duty; twice minor punishments and twice major punishments. 11. So far as the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6652 of 2014 (supra) is concerned, the same was a case of overstayal and the reason for overstayal was duly explained and the enquiries were not made by the Superintendent/Commandant from the SP of the native village of the officer in terms of rule 843 of the Jharkhand Police Manual when the petitioner of the said case overstayed the leave period and did not return to duty on time. The present case is not a case of overstay of leave period and accordingly, the said provision does not apply. In the present case, the petitioner refused to perform his duty and absconded from duty and accordingly, the said judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner. There is no explanation on the part of the petitioner and no such reason has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner did not perform the duty when he was asked to perform duty on 04.01.2005 and instead absconded from his duty and therefore it 2025:JHHC:13275 5 cannot be said that refusal to perform duty and absconding from duty in the present case was not willful. 12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned action and impugned order of the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul