2026:JHHC:2832 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5357 of 2016 Pritam Kumar Verma, son of Vijay Verma, resident of Nayatola Purani Sahebganj, PO, PS & Dist.-Sahebganj ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2 The Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at project Building, Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi 3. The Director General of Police, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi 4. Inspector General of Police, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi 5. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi having its office at Doranda, PO & PS-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi 6. Deputy Superintendent of Police, JAP-8, Lesliganj Palamau having its office at PO, PS & Dist.-Palamau 7. Commandant, JAP-8, Lesiliganj Palamau having its office at PO, PS & Dist.-Palamau ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Varun Prabhakar, AC to GP-III -------- Order No. 12 /Dated: 3rd February 2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order of punishment issued under Memo No. 314 dated 10.09.2014 passed by the respondent no.7 whereby the petitioner has been awarded major punishment of one black mark for the alleged charge of grave misconduct and dereliction of duty. 2. Briefly stated, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1080 dated 19.07.2014 and after proper departmental enquiry, order of punishment has been passed. Pursuant thereto; petitioner has also filed an appeal before the appellate authority who also did not interfere the order of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has taken a specific ground that the other charge-sheeted persons facing similar set of charges have already been exonerated by the respondent-authorities and the 2026:JHHC:2832 2 Respondents are adopting pick and choose method among the co- employees. 3. It appears that a supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed on 25.01.2024 wherein the respondents have taken a specific stand that after proper departmental enquiry wherein the officer has found that the charge has been found proved, disciplinary authority has accepted the enquiry report and imposed punishment. To counter the specific claim of parity by the petitioner, the respondents have made specific averments in paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 25.01.2024 which are extracted hereinbelow: “6. That the departmental proceeding no.33 / 2014 was initiated and conducted against the Police-72, Manmohan Kumar and in pursuance thereof enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer with the conclusion that the aforesaid police personnel is not guilty therefore relying upon the finding of the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority, has passed the order dated 24.09.2014, “ while agreeing with the opinion of the conducting officer, I do not find him guilty of the charges leveled against him.” But in the case of the petitioner enquiry office does not exonerated the petitioner from the charges leveled against him and disciplinary authority also finds that the petitioner is guilty of the charges leveled against him. 7. That so far as charges leveled against the A.S.I Chandra Mohan Tiwari is concerned is not exactly similar to that of the charges leveled against the petitioner. 8. That while passing the order dated 28.05.2015, by the appellate authority, appellate authority concluded that the A.S.I Chandra Mohan Tiwari was newly posted in the reserved office, hence he was not aware about the said file and after getting information about the said file, he immediately sent the file to the issuing branch through Pritam Kumar Verma (petitioner).” 4. Looking to the specific averments which have not been denied by the petitioner in any rejoinder, no case is made out. This Court has also gone into the impugned order and it has been found that there is no procedural irregularity; nor there is any perversity in the order. 5. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 3rd February 2026 Amit Uploaded on 12/03/2026