-1 of 4- L.P.A. No. 66 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 66 of 2024 Shri Nath Rai Age – 54 yrs, S/o – Swargiya Banwari Rai R/o – Gaye Ghat, P.O – Padari, P.S- Simari Distt – Bhojpur Presently residing at Saket Nagar, Hinoo, P.O & P.S- Doranda Distt Ranchi ... ... Appellant Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand Police Head Quarter, P.O & P.S- Dhurwa, Distt Ranchi. 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, Kutcheri Chowk Deputy Para, P.O. & G.P.O- Ranchi, P.S-Kotwali, Distt-Ranchi.. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range, P.O. & P.S-Kotwali, District-Ranchi. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to A.G. --------- 06/Dated: 25.03.2025 M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral) Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 12.09.2023 in W.P. (S) No. 4640 of 2019 by which the learned Single Judge had upheld the action of the respondents in imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant on 20.12.2013. 3. The appellant had been posted as a Constable in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi. The Confidential Reader in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police informed the appellant on 29.04.2006 at 18.55 hours to report but the appellant refused to receive the order. Again on 30.04.2006, the appellant is alleged to have refused to receive the command which was sent to him through Special Messenger Arjun Prasad Yadav. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi through a District Order No. 1804 of 2006 dt. 13.05.2006 held up the salary of the appellant and also directed him to appear in the -2 of 4- L.P.A. No. 66 of 2024 office. When he did not join duty for a long time, another memo was sent on 17th August, 2006 asking him to join duty otherwise strict action would be taken against him. This order was sent to the home address of the appellant through registered post but the same was returned back undelivered. Since the appellant did not join duty the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi on 08.10.2006 issued charge memo against the appellant for gross indiscipline, dereliction of duty, negligence and absconding from duty. 4. The appellant did not submit any explanation to the charge memo. 5. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant and the appellant was directed through several memos to participate in the departmental proceeding and submit his defence statement, but the appellant neither submitted his defence nor participated in the departmental proceeding. The enquiry officer recorded the statement of the witnesses in the absence of the appellant and directed the appellant to submit his final defence and threatened to conclude the proceedings ex parte, but even then the appellant did not turn up and submit his defence statement. The enquiry officer concluded that the charges leveled against the appellant were true and submitted an enquiry report to that effect. 6. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued a second show cause notice to the appellant to submit his explanation against the proposed punishment, but again the appellant failed to submit his reply. Thereafter, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi issued a memo on 29th August, 2012 directing the appellant to submit his explanation within 30 days failing which he would be dismissed from service. -3 of 4- L.P.A. No. 66 of 2024 7. Thereupon, the appellant submitted his explanation on 11.09.2012. The disciplinary authority considered the same and imposed a punishment of dismissal on 26.09.2012 on the appellant. 8. The appellant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the appellate authority who modified the order of dismissal to one of compulsory retirement on 20.12.2013. 9. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P. (S) No. 4640 of 2019 in this Court. 10. The learned Single Judge held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice and that the enquiry officer was forced to conclude the departmental proceeding ex parte and find the appellant guilty of the charges. After referring to certain judgments of the Supreme Court which held that this Court will not re-appreciate evidence in a challenge to disciplinary proceedings, the learned Single Judge found that there was no infirmity in the action taken by the respondents. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed. 11. Counsel for the appellant sought to place reliance on Rule 843 in Chapter 25 of Bihar Police Manual, 1861. The said provision states as under: - “843. Punishment for absence without leave.—Wilful overstayal of leave or absence from duty without leave shall be treated as misbehaviour and after obtaining the explanation of the officer concerned proceedings shall invariably be drawn up and departmental punishment inflicted. If after explanation, it appears that a police officer had remained absent from duty due to any sufficient reason he shall be granted leave admissible to him for that period. If it is proved that he has violated the Rules at his own will, he can be inflicted with any punishment as provided in Rule 824. The Police Officer who shall be absent from duty without permission shall be liable under Section 29 of Act V of 1861, as amended by Section 9 of the Act VIII of 1895. Such action however, -4 of 4- L.P.A. No. 66 of 2024 should be taken only in special circumstances. As a Rule whenever an officer does not return in time on duty, enquiries shall be made by the Superintendent Commandant within one week from the S. P. of his native district, and should there appear that the officer has not returned to his duties in time for good reasons he should be suspended and departmental proceeding should be undertaken as per rule.” 12. Though counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the enquiry officer should be the Superintendent Commandant and that in the instant case the Inspector conducted the enquiry, we are unable to accept the said contention for the reason that Rule 843 does not deal with the person who is competent to do the enquiry against Constables; as the rule only states that if the employee of the Police Department does not return in time on duty, an enquiry shall be made by the Superintendent Commandant within one week from the Superintendent of Police of his native district. The sentence in Rule 843 cannot be interpreted to mean that the disciplinary enquiry should be conducted by the Superintendent Commandant. 13. Since the appellant had not submitted his defence to the charge memo nor participated in the disciplinary enquiry and since the disciplinary authority on the basis of the evidence adduced in the disciplinary enquiry proceedings found the appellant guilty of the misconduct, we do not see any reason to interfere with the action of the respondents in imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant. 14. Accordingly, the L.P.A. fails and is dismissed. No costs. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) APK/VK