2026:JHHC:687 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1700 of 2022 ----- Ajay Kumar, S/o Late Karmu Village- Hochar, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.Central Coalfields Ltd. through it Chairman Cum Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O, P.s. Kotwali, District- Ranchi 2.Director (Personal), Central Coalfields Ltd, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 3.General Manager (P&IR), Central Coalfields Ltd, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, district Ranchi 4.Manager (Mining), Central Coalfields Limited kedla Open Cast Project, Kedla, Ramgarh, P.O. Kedla, P.S. Kedla, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tejaswa Mohanta, Advocate For the Resp-CCL : Mr. Rajesh Lalla, Advocate …...... 19/ 12.01.2026: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the CCL. 2. Petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 15.10.2020, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service. The charge against the petitioner is of unauthorized absence. The enquiry report which proved the charge specified that Ajay Kumar was absent from duty from 09.09.2011 to 13.07.2012 and again from 28.09.2012 to 25.09.2013. The enquire officer found the charge of unauthorized absence to be proved. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was absent because of some reasons beyond his control as he was suffering from depression because of some decease. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-CCL submits that since the charge has already been proved and also the fact that inspite of medical examination the petitioner was allowed to join, the petitioner did not join, was sufficient to remove the petitioner from service. 5. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while dealing with the punishment order in the department proceeding is limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Rajendra Singh, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 at paragraph 19 has held as under:- “19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows: 19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case……” 6. The fact which also cannot be lost sight of is that if the punishment does not commensurate with the proved misconduct, this Court can interfere with the same. In the instant case, I find from the inquiry report that petitioner was absent in two stages, one from 09.09.2011 to 13.07.2012 and second from 28.09.2012 to 25.09.2013. For being absent in these two periods, the petitioner has been removed from service. 7. The petitioner was a dumper operator. According to this Court, the punishment of removal from service is too harsh. One opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to mend himself. Thus, since, I arrive to the conclusion that the quantum of punishment is too harsh and is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct, in view of the judgment of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Supra), I am remanding the matter to the respondents to decide on the quantum of punishment, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving one opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, on the limited point this matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to take a fresh decision on the quantum of punishment. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 12th January, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 15/01/2026