2026:JHHC:11574 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6706 of 2018 ------- Ram Sali Oraon, aged about 29 years son of Sri Budhram Oraon, Resident of Police Line, Lohardaga, P.O & P.S. Lohardaga, District- Lohardaga. …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Superintendent of Police Lohardaga, P.O & P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Ranchi, having office at Kutchery Road, P.O G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali District, Ranchi. …..Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Adv. For the Res.-State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand No.2, AC- G.P.IV ------- 08/Dated:20.04.2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the second show cause notice dated 14.10.2018 (Annexure-4), and also the enquiry report dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure-3), prepared by the Enquiry Officer during the Departmental Proceeding No.22/16 conducted against the petitioner. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to produce the copy of the charge memo which as per the petitioner was never served to him. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during entire period of Departmental Proceeding No. 22/16, the petitioner was behind the bar and therefore he could not appear before the enquiry officer to 2026:JHHC:11574 2 defend/present his case and the entire enquiry was done behind the back of the petitioner. All the witnesses have got their statement recorded before the enquiry officer when the petitioner was behind the bar and therefore the petitioner could not be provided any opportunity to cross examine the so-called witnesses. Further, he submits that the petitioner has not been served with the copy of the charge memo which is the basis of initiation of Departmental Proceeding No. 22/16 against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner could not give any reply to the memo of charge as petitioner was not aware about the charge/charges leveled against the petitioner and the entire enquiry was done by the enquiry officer without following the basic principle of departmental proceeding as well as the principle of natural justice. He further submits that no witnesses have deposed anything substantial on the basis of which the enquiry officer could reach to a conclusion that the charge/charges leveled against the petitioner is/are found to be true and no witnesses during enquiry have said anything substantial which corroborated the charge/charges leveled against the petitioner and therefore the conclusion portion is non-est in the eyes of law. 2026:JHHC:11574 3 3. It has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the proceeding went ex- parte as the petitioner was in judicial custody, however he tries to demonstrate that period of custody did not obstruct the departmental proceeding. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record; admittedly, the petitioner was in judicial custody during the entire enquiry period and it is also not disputed that there is no record of service of memo of charge to the petitioner and the entire enquiry proceeding has been proceeded ex-parte. 5. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter should be remitted to the enquiry officer to continue the enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner by giving him copy of the memo of charge and following the principal of natural justice and thereafter a fresh enquiry report be submitted to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority thereafter shall proceed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 6. Accordingly, second show cause notice dated 14.10.2018 (Annexure-4) and also the enquiry report dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure-3); are hereby, quashed and set aside. Since it is an old matter as such, the 2026:JHHC:11574 4 respondents are directed to conclude the departmental proceeding from the stage of enquiry within a period of Six months. 7. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s if any, also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) April 20, 2026 Uploaded on 05/05/2026 Fahim/-