2025:JHHC:27410 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1637 of 2018 ------- Laxman Mishra, Son of Late Asharfi Mishra, aged about 66 years, Resident of Village: Barhari, P.O:Barhari, P.S: Benipatti, Dist: Madhubani,; Bihar … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General -cum- Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Police Head Quarter, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand; 3. The Inspector General of Police, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S: Bokaro, Dist: Bokaro, Jharkhand; 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, JAP, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S: Doranda, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand; 5. The Commandant, JAP-4, B.S. City, P.O.: Bokaro, P.S: Bokaro, Dist: Bokaro, Jharkhand; .……Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Adv. : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV ------- CAV ON:02.07.2025 Pronounced On:-09/09/2025 Heard Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy and Mr. Indranil Bhaduri appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred for the following reliefs: - 2025:JHHC:27410 2 (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of 'Certiorari' for quashing the reply under RTI dated 03.11.2017, along with Order of compulsory punishment passed by Commandant, JAP-4, Bokaro, vide Order dated 17.02.2013, bearing Memo No. 307 Ra.Ka (Annexure-15 series). (b) For issuance an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of 'Certiorari' for quashing the Order dated 31.03.2005, bearing Memo No. 700/Ra.Ka. (Ann-7), passed by the Commandant, JAP-4, Bokaro(Resp No.5), and the appellate Order dated 04.03.2007 bearing Memo No. 515/Sa.Sha. (Ann-9), passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, JAP, Ranchi (Resp No.4), and for further quashing the Order dated 02.04.2008 passed in the Memorial Appeal, bearing Memo No. 393/D (Ann-10) passed by the Director General -cum- Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi (Resp No.2), whereby and where under, the Petitioner has been inflicted with a major punishment of compulsory retirement from service. (c) For further issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of 'Mandamus', directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary/ back wages of the period from when the petitioner was suspended till the date of his actual date of superannuation i.e. 31.08.2012. (d) For further issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of 'Mandamus', directing the respondents to pay the notional benefits and to revise the pension of the petitioner and pay the other consequential benefits for which the petitioner is entitled in accordance with law. 3. From record, it appears that the Petitioner had earlier preferred a writ application challenging the impugned order of termination, in WPS No. 4872 of 2008, which was disposed of by the order passed by this Court on 20.09.2012; whereby, instead of quashing the order of compulsory retirement, the case was disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to move a representation before the State Government. 2025:JHHC:27410 3 For better appreciation, the operative portion of the aforesaid order is extracted herein below:- “ Learned counsel for the State submits that if such a representation is moved, State Government taking into consideration every materials shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner, present petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to move a representation before the State Government within 30 days from today. On the representation so moved appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law within 60 days thereafter”. It appears that when the said order was not complied, the Petitioner preferred a contempt case being Cont.(CVL.) No.262 of 2013, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. However, by going through the order passed in Cont.(CVL.) No.262 of 2013, it appears that the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that he would be filing a fresh representation to the present incumbent. 4. Briefly stated, the Petitioner along with other Police personnels, were charge sheeted. As per the charge sheet, Petitioner, along with other Police personnels, went on mass leave, and the Petitioner, who was the secretary of the Police Men's Association, had provoked other Police personnels by giving hatred speech and while taking arms in his hand, shouted slogans and for all these acts; a departmental proceeding was conducted and the Petitioner was compulsory retired. 2025:JHHC:27410 4 5. The writ application being WPS No. 4872 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner was disposed of without any interference with the order of compulsory retirement by only giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the State authority. Thereafter, Petitioner himself submitted before the Court in contempt proceedings, i.e. in Cont.(CVL.) No.262 of 2013, that since the then Home Secretary is no longer in service, as such, he would be filing a fresh representation in pursuance to the direction of the Writ Court. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case, wherein there is a specific averment in para 12 which reads as follows: “…….. there is no any statement regarding representation in pursuance of order dated 02.09.2012 passed in WPS No. 4872 of 2008 in entire writ petition …..”. 7. Having heard Ld. Counsels for the rival parties and after going through the records and the averments made in the respective affidavits, it clearly transpires that; on the one hand, the order of compulsory retirement was not interfered by the Writ Court in the earlier round of litigation and the Petitioner was only given liberty to move the State of Jharkhand for reconsideration and on the other hand, there is no document annexed with the instant application in order to demonstrate that the Petitioner had filed any 2025:JHHC:27410 5 representation. Even the Contempt Application filed by the Petitioner was dismissed. Moreover, the specific and categorical stand in the counter-affidavit that no representation has been filed by the Petitioner has not been controverted by Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, either during course of argument or by way of any rejoinder affidavit. 8. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner does not have any case. 9. Now coming to the order of compulsory retirement, it appears that there was no violation of principle of natural justice and the charge was very grave in nature, inasmuch as, the Petitioner happens to be Secretary of Police Men's Association and he provoked the other Police personnels by giving hatred speech and taking arms in his hand, shouted slogans, which is certainly a gross misconduct. 10. During course of hearing, the only argument of the Petitioner is that since the other Police personnels who were also charge sheeted, has been exonerated when they made representation; however, the petitioner’s case has not been considered. As stated hereinabove, on the one hand; there is no representation on record in order to demonstrate that he has ever represented before the State of 2025:JHHC:27410 6 Jharkhand and on the other hand, the charge against those Police personnels cannot be equated with that of this Petitioner, inasmuch as, this Petitioner was secretary of the Police Men's Association, and he himself provoked the other Police personnels to raise arms and do misconduct. Therefore, under no circumstances the allegation against this Petitioner can be equated with those other Police personnels who were charge-sheeted and compulsorily retired, and whose punishments were subsequently revoked upon representation. 11. At the cost of repetition, the order of compulsory retirement challenged by the Petitioner in the earlier round of litigation has never been quashed or interfered and he was only given liberty to move appropriate authority by filing representation which he never did; as stated in para-12 of the counter affidavit, which the petitioner never disputed. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to this Petitioner and the instant application stands dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, is also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/- AFR/NAFR