2025:JHHC:21486 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5535 of 2015 Dinesh Prasad Shrivastava, son of late Sita Ram Prasad Shrivastava, resident of Village: Hussainpur, P.O. Mansurpur, P.S. Vaishali, Dist Vaishali, Bihar … … Petitioner Versus 1. 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. Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S: Hazaribagh, Dist: Hazaribagh, Jharkhand; 4. Superintendent of Police, Giridih, P.O: Giridih, P.S: Giridih, Dist: Giridih, Jharkhand … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to GP I --- 07/01.08.2025 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 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 17.07.2014, (Annexure-9) vide Giridih District Order No. 1193/14, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Giridih, (Resp No.4) whereby and whereunder the services of the Petitioner has been dismissed with immediate effect. And b) For issuance of a writ/order/ direction in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding upon the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner back in service, alongwith the back wages and all other consequential benefits for which the Petitioner is entitled in accordance with law, after quashing the order of dismissal. And c) For issuance of a writ/ order/ direction in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding upon the Respondents to pay the 2025:JHHC:21486 2 subsistence allowance of the entire period during which the Petitioner was suspended from service. And d) 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.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had joined his service in police force on 21.06.1992 and after completing 22 years of service, he has been dismissed on 17.07.2014. 4. The learned counsel submits that three separate charge sheets were issued to the petitioner as contained in Annexure - 1, 2 and 5. So far as Annexure – 1 is concerned, it is relating to habitual absconding from service and that he did not take the training and 7 times, he has remained absconder. The learned counsel submits that once the petitioner has been punished for being absconder in past, the same cannot be subsequently taken into consideration as that would amount to double jeopardy. So far as Annexure – 2 is concerned, he submits that he was to take training but on 21.10.2012, he went for 3 days leave and was supposed to join on 25.10.2012 but he remained absent for 197 days without leave and without intimation. The learned counsel has referred to medical report at Annexure – 3 to submit that on 23.07.2013, the petitioner was examined by the medical board and his mental and physical condition was also examined. It was opined that petitioner is unfit for basic training (including running of 10 km morning and evening). The learned counsel submits that since the petitioner was unfit therefore, he did not participate in the training. He has also submitted that the petitioner was mentally unfit. With respect to Annexure – 5, the learned counsel has submitted that there is another dispute regarding his date of birth and it has been alleged that he has suppressed his date of birth and in different medical reports, there are two different dates of birth and the difference is by 7 years. 2025:JHHC:21486 3 5. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was not paid the subsistence allowance from September 2013 till the date of dismissal. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and submitted that there are serious charges which were proved against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding and all the basic procedure including natural justice have been duly followed in the present case. He has referred to Annexure – 3 and submitted that Annexure – 3 does not reveal that the petitioner was otherwise suffering from any disease. He has also submitted that Annexure- 3 is dated 23.07.2013 although his training was in the year 2012 itself. The learned counsel submits that the Writ Courts do not sit in appeal against the orders passed in departmental proceeding and the order of dismissal imposed is adequate and proportionate to the charges levelled and proved against the petitioner. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after going through the records, this Court finds that there have been serious charges against the petitioner and no violation of principles of natural justice has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing and the charge sheets were issued taking into consideration his past conduct as well. The petitioner had also repeatedly absented himself from duty/training without taking leave. So far as the medical report at Annexure – 3 is concerned, the same is dated 23.07.2013 and the petitioner was to undergo training in the year 2012 itself therefore the said document does not help the petitioner in any manner. Moreover, the said document is not reflecting any disease of the petitioner physical or mental. He has been simply found unfit for training. Further, considering the past conduct of an employee, for which the employee has been punished earlier, does not amount to double jeopardy. Past conduct, if reflecting in the chargesheet has serious bearing in departmental proceedings particularly in the matter of quantum of punishment. 2025:JHHC:21486 4 8. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and being conscious of the fact that the Writ Courts do not sit in appeal against the orders passed in the departmental proceeding, which can be interfered in cases of violation of principles of natural justice causing prejudiced or in case of violation of any statutory provision or when the punishment is disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved. None of such grounds have been made out in the present case in the light of the arguments which has been advanced by the petitioner, accordingly this Court finds no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. 9. However, so far as the grievance of the petitioner regarding payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, he can raise such grievance before appropriate authority, who shall consider the same as per law and if any amount is found admissible, the same shall be remitted to the petitioner. 10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav