THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND v. PARTHA SARATHI CHOWDHURY
LPA/371/2025 · 2025-09-24
Rajesh Shankar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4941 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4941 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:29740-DB
-1 of 3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 371 of 2025
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, P.O & P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Planning-cum- Finance, Planning Division, Government of Jharkhand, Yojna Bhawan, Nepal House Complex, Doranda, P.O & P.S Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The Special Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Planning Division, Government of Jharkhand, Yojna Bhawan, Nepal House Complex, Doranda, P.O & P.S Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. The Additional Director-cum-Additional Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Planning Division, Government of Jharkhand, Yojna Bhawan, Nepal House Complex, Doranda, P.O & P.S Doranda, District Ranchi. 5. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Planning Division, Government of Jharkhand, Yojna Bhawan, Nepal House Complex, Doranda, P.O & P.S Doranda, District Ranchi. 6. The Under Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Planning Division, Government of Jharkhand, Yojna Bhawan, Nepal House Complex, Doranda, P.O & P.S Doranda, District Ranchi. 7. The Joint Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Planning Division, Government of Jharkhand, Yojna Bhawan, Nepal House Complex, Doranda, P.O & P.S Doranda, District Ranchi. … … … Appellants
Versus
1. Partha Sarathi Chowdhury, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Narayan Prasad Chowdhury, Permanent resident of: 109/17, A, Hazra Road, P.O Kalighat, P.S Tallygunge, Kolkata-700026, West Bengal, earlier working as "Director" in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Jharkhand, Yojona Bhawan, Nepal House Complex, Doranda, P.O & P.S Doranda, District Ranchi. 2. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Office at Circular Road, P.O., G.P.O, P.S Lalpur, District Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Secretariat of Hon'ble Governor, Jharkhand, Office at Raj Bhawan, Kanke Road, P.O G.P.O, P.S Gonda Town, District Ranchi. … … … Respondents
--------- CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
2025:JHHC:29740-DB
-2 of 3-
For the Appellants: Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, A.C. to G.A.-V --------- 02/Dated: 24.09.2025 I.A. No. 1208 of 2025
1. For the reasons stated in the Interlocutory Application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the officer of the appellants, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 95 days that has crept up in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay is condoned. This Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 371 of 2025
3.
We really wonder why the State has filed the instant appeal given the fact that the learned writ Court has already remanded back the matter to respondent No. 5 in the writ petition i.e. the Deputy Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Planning Division, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to issue show cause to the writ petitioner in the light of Rule 18(4) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal), Rules, 2016 which reads as under:
18. Action on the inquiry report: (4) The Disciplinary Authority if it is different from the inquiry authority shall before making a final order in the case, forward a copy of the inquiry report to the Government Servant concerned who may submit, if he or she so desires, his or her written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days. The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation or submission, if any, submitted by the Government Servant before proceeding further in the manner specified in sub rule (5) and (6).”
4. Not only this it is for the appellants herein to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Once that be so, obviously the appellants
2025:JHHC:29740-DB
-3 of 3-
cannot be termed to be an aggrieved party. Moreover, the order does not even create cause of action to the appellants State to file the instant appeal. Consequently, the instant appeal is ordered to be dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
24.09.2025
N.A.F.R. APK/VK.