2026:JHHC:4865 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2173 of 2023 ----- Sukhnath Pandey aged about 55 years son of Birendra Pandey resident of Village- Kundi, P.O.- Ranka, P.S.-Garhwa, Dist.- Garhwa. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand having its office at Dhuwra, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Region, having its office at-Kutchery, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), having its office at Kutchery, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi. 5. Senior Superintendent of Police, , having its office at Kutchery, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi …Respondent(s). With W.P.(S) No. 2181 of 2023 ----- Mangal Singh Pingua aged about 49 years son of Ramlal Pingua resident of Village- Pokharia, P.O.- Andhari, P.S.-Andhari, Dist.- West Singhbhum. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand having its office at Dhuwra, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Region, having its office at Kutchery, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), having its office at Kutchery, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi. 5. Senior Superintendent of Police, having its office at Kutchery, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi …Respondent(s). With W.P.(S) No. 2177 of 2023 ----- Krishna Kumar Singh aged about 62 years son of Inder Singh resident of Village- Tupudana, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand having its office at Dhuwra, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Region, having its office at Kutchery, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi. 2026:JHHC:4865 2 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), having its office at Kutchery, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi. 5. Senior Superintendent of Police, , having its office at Kutchery, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwalh, Dist.- Ranchi …Respondent(s). With W.P.(S) No. 2205 of 2023 ----- Ajay Kumar Singh aged about 52 years son of Arjun Singh resident of Village- Bareo, P.O.- Nemdarganj, P.S.-Nawada, Dist.- Nawada (Bihar). ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand having its office at Dhuwra, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Region, having its office at Kutchery, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), having its office at Kutchery, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi. 5. Senior Superintendent of Police, having its office at Kutchery, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi …Respondent(s). With W.P.(S) No. 2207 of 2023 ----- Chandramohan Gope aged about 55 years son of Bandhu Gope resident of Villiage- Khora Bhakuva Toli, P.O.- Khora, P.S.- Gumla Khora, Dist.- Gumla. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand having its office at Dhuwra, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist,- Ranchi. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Region, having its office at Kutchery, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), having its office at Kutchery, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi. 5. Senior Superintendent of Police, , having its office at Kutchery, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist. — Ranchi …Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sonal Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, AC to SC- VII : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC- VI 2026:JHHC:4865 3 : Mr. Apoorva Singh, AC to SC (Mines) : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V : Mr. Aditee Dongrawat, AC to GP-V : Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, SC-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V …...... 06/ 04.02.2026: By way of filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for the common reliefs. For better appreciation the relief of W.P.(S) No. 2173 of 2023 has been quoted as under: - “a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s) and/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi in departmental proceeding number 229/2016, vide memo no 2905 dated 29.08.2022 (Annexure-4), whereby and where under The DIG South Chatonagpur Range, Ranchi has dismissed the appeal against order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police and ordered to adjust the dismissal period i.e. from 1.6.2008 to 30.09.2016 as Extraordinary Leave (EOL) by forfeiting salary allowance on the basis of ‘no work no pay’ and further ordered to withheld increment of 2 years which will be equivalent to 3 marks. b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s) and/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 16.02.2018 (Annexure-2) passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police whereby the authority has ordered to adjust the dismissal period i.e. from 1.6.2008 to 30.09.2016 as Extraordinary Leave (EOL) by forfeiting salary allowance on the basis of ‘no work no pay’ and further ordered to withheld increment of 2 years which will be equivalent to 3 marks. c) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s) and/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents upon quashing of the punishment order as well as appellate order to forthwith release the salary for the period the petitioner was not in service i.e. from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement in view of Rule 97(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 and also in view of the provisions laid down under the Police Manual and also to rant increments as available to an employee in normal circumstances.” 2. The facts of the case in short is that the petitioners were appointed as Constables. An FIR was lodged against the petitioners after a life convict escaped from custody while under treatment at RIMS, Ranchi. The punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioners by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi on 01.06.2008, and the dismissal was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioners challenged the order of dismissal by filing W.P.(C) No.5656 of 2008 and analogous cases, in which the coordinate bench of this Court by order 2026:JHHC:4865 4 dated 12.04.2016 quashed the Dismissal order and order passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that they did not contain proper reasons as required under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, and remitted the matter only on the question of quantum of punishment. Pursuant to the High Court’s order, the Senior Superintendent of Police passed an order dated 16.02.2018, treating the period from 01.06.2008 to 30.09.2016 as Extraordinary Leave on the principle of “no work no pay”, and also withheld two increments. The petitioners filed an appeal seeking salary for the dismissal period, but the appeal was dismissed. Hence, they filed present writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities failed to apply their mind and have not considered Rule 13(2) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 and Rule 97 (2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. Since the dismissal order was quashed by the High Court, the petitioners are entitled to payment of salary or proportionate salary for the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. He further submits that the authorities mechanically applied “no work no pay” without determining the proportion of pay as required under Rule 97(3) of the Jharkhand Service Code. The petitioners were ready and willing to work, but were kept away from service due to the illegal dismissal, and therefore the principle of “no work no pay” does not apply. He also submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before treating the entire dismissal period as Extraordinary Leave, which is mandatory under Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code. 4. The learned counsel for respondents submits that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.5656 of 2008 and analogous cases a departmental enquiry was initiated after giving show cause notices to the petitioners. During enquiry, it was found that no police personnel were present with the convict, who moved freely, consumed liquor, used a mobile phone, and continued criminal activities. He further submits that 2026:JHHC:4865 5 the convict escaped from the custody of petitioners showing clear negligence of the petitioners. The incident seriously tarnished the image of the police in the eyes of the public. He also submits that the departmental enquiry was conducted lawfully, and the enquiry report held the petitioners guilty of the charges. After considering the enquiry report and records, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 16.02.2018, imposing punishment of withholding two increments (equivalent to three black marks). The petitioners cannot claim salary or benefits for the dismissal period as a matter of right. No procedural irregularity has been committed in the departmental proceedings to justify judicial interference. The petitioners were found guilty of serious misconduct, and the punishment imposed is just and reasonable. Thus, he submitted that the present writ petitions being devoid of merit should be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the pursuant to order passed by coordinate bench of this court in W.P.(C) No.5656 of 2008 and analogous cases, the petitioners were issued show cause notices and the enquiry proceedings initiated for the allegation that they were given custody of life convict, Anil Sharma for his treatment in RIMS and he escaped from police custody while he was undergoing medical treatment. It was further alleged that the convict fled from custody due to the petitioners’ negligence, and the escape was reported belatedly to the police station. The enquiry proceeding was conducted in accordance with law and the enquiry report was submitted with the opinion that the petitioners has been found guilty of charges levelled against them. Based on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority punished them by withholding two salary increments (equal to three black marks). Their dismissal period from 01.06.2008 to 30.09.2016 was treated as extraordinary leave without pay under the rule of “no work, no pay.” 6. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners that when the dismissal order of the petitioners was quashed, they are entitled to payment of salary or proportionate salary for the period from the date of dismissal till the 2026:JHHC:4865 6 date of reinstatement in view of the Rule 13(2) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 and Rule 97 (2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, is misconceived. It is necessary to quote Rule 97 (2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 and Rule 13(1)&(2) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016. 7. Rule 97 (2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 reads as under: “97(2) Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1), is of opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be.” 8. Rule 13(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 reads as under:- “13. Treatment of service on reinstatement and admissibility of pay and allowances where dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside by a court of law :- (1) Where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government Servant is set aside by a court of law and such Government Servant is reinstated without holding any further inquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularised and the Government Servant shall be paid pay and allowances in accordance with the provisions of sub rule (2) or (3) of this rule subject to the directions if any, of the court. 2) i) In cases other than those covered by sub rule (3) of this rule, the Government Servant shall be paid such proportion of the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and as the Disciplinary Authority may determine. The Disciplinary Authority shall determine the proportion of such payment after giving notice to the Government Servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, in that connection, within sixty days from the date on which the notice aforesaid is served to the Government Servant. Provided that any payment under this sub rule to a Government Servant shall neither be equal to the full pay and allowances nor less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under rule 10, as the case may be. ii) The period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of judgment of the court shall be regularised in accordance with the provisions contained in sub rule (5) of rule 12. 3..........” 2026:JHHC:4865 7 9. Rule 97 (2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 clearly mandates that if the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, in the opinion of the Authority it is wholly unjustified then his/she is entitled to payment of salary or proportionate salary for the period from dismissal till reinstatement. But in instant case, I find that by order dated 12.04.2016, a Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the Dismissal order and order passed by the Appellate Authority and remitted the matter only on the question of quantum of punishment. Thereafter, Departmental Proceedings are initiated against them, for inquiry into the allegations and for the settlement of his salary dues for the period from June 1, 2008 to September 30, 2016, vide Ranchi District Order No. 4909/16, dated 4.10.2016. Show cause Notices were issued by the Enquiry Officer to submit their defence. Furthermore, in the departmental proceedings initiated after the said order, they were found guilty of the charges leveled against them. Thus, the petitioners' case does not fall within the purview of Rule 97(2). 10. Similarly, Rule 13(1) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 provides that where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government Servant is set aside by a court of law and such Government Servant is reinstated without holding any further inquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularised and the Government Servant shall be paid his/her allowances in accordance with the provisions of sub rule (2) or (3) of this rule subject to the directions if any, of the court. As notice above, coordinate bench of this Court has only set aside the dismissal order and Appellate order and remanded the matter only on the question of quantum of punishment, thereafter, a departmental proceeding initiated after the said order, in which they were found guilty of the charges leveled against them. Thus, Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 also does not apply in the present case. It is 2026:JHHC:4865 8 necessary to quote paragraph No.14 of the order dated 12.04.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.5656 of 2008 and analogous cases, which reads as under: “14. Viewed thus, the impugned orders of punishment of dismissal from service, dated 01.06.2008, passed by the Respondent No. 5, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi as well as the order dated 23.10.2008, passed by the appellate authority i.e. respondent no. 3 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents to pass appropriate order on the quantum of punishment strictly in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/communication of the order.” 11. The disciplinary authority has imposed a lesser punishment i.e., withholding two increments (equivalent to three black marks), which cannot be said to be disproportionate considering the gravity of misconduct established in the departmental enquiry. The petitioners were found guilty of serious misconduct, that is, they were not present to guard life convict on the day he escaped from the hospital, and that they provided information regarding the incident very late. The contention that the petitioners are entitled to salary for the dismissal period is misconceived. Further, the petitioners are members of Disciplined Force (Constable), hence they are required to maintain strict discipline [refer, Samar Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 94]. 12. It is well-settled that the Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, does not act as an Appellate Authority over departmental proceedings, unless perversity or gross illegality is shown, which is absent in the present case. Further, it is well settled that the punishment awarded to the petitioner, unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review by the court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372, in 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. 2026:JHHC:4865 9 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. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co- delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” 13. In the light of what has been held above, I find that no ground is made out to interfere with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate orders, which are under challenge. 14. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. 15. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 04.02.2026 S.K.D./Cp-2 A.F.R. Uploaded on 20.02.2026