2026:JHHC:3080 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.942 of 2023 ------ Binod Kumar, son of Sri Padharth Mahto, resident of Village Delhuwa, P.O. Govindpur, P.S. Govindpur, District Nawada (Bihar). … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Director General of Police (DGP)-cum-Inspector General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, DPRD Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh. 4. Superintendent of Police, Chatra, P.O & P.S. Chatra, District Chatra. 5. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. & District Hazaribagh. 6. The Assistant Superintendent of Police-cum-Sub Divisional Police Officer-cum-Conducting Officer, Simariya, P.O. & P.S. Simariya, District Chatra, Jharkhand. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG ------ 10/ 04.02.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order as contained in Memo No.833 dated 30.06.2020, passed in Departmental Proceeding No.10/18 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. 2.1. The petitioner has further challenged the Appellate Order as contained in Memo No.250 dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-14/1 to the writ petition), whereby the Appellate Authority had dismissed the Appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the order of dismissal of the 2026:JHHC:3080 2 petitioner. 2.2. The petitioner also claims reinstatement in service along with consequential benefits. 3. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3071 of 2022. This Court disposed the said writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. 3.1. The petitioner thereafter approached the Appellate Authority by filing an Appeal. However, the said Appeal stood dismissed. 4. After hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed in a very short note. 5. The charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner alleging therein that he was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.2,000/-. On the self-same ground, a criminal case has also been instituted against the petitioner being Anti-Corruption Bureau Case No.46/2017, under Section 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The criminal case is still pending. 6. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally. In the departmental proceeding, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer after completion of enquiry, submitted the enquiry report. The enquiry report has been brought on record. 7. From the enquiry report (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), I find that the Enquiry Officer has not arrived at any conclusion. He has only stated that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme 2026:JHHC:3080 3 Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. reported in (1993) 3 SCC 679, the Departmental Proceeding should be stayed and he submitted the report to that effect, requesting the Authority to stay the Departmental Proceeding. 8. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter issued a second show cause notice and thereafter dismissed the petitioner. 9. From the second show cause notice, I find that there is nothing to conclude that the Disciplinary Authority has differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 10. The Enquiry Officer is an independent officer who has to enquire into the charge levelled against the delinquent employee. He has to act independently. He is not the Authority to propose staying the Departmental Enquiry, thus the Enquiry Officer in this case acted beyond his jurisdiction. An Enquiry Officer after an enquiry has to come to a conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are established or not. The same has to be based on the evidence which has been produced. 11. From the entire enquiry report, it is clear that the Enquiry Officer has not arrived at a conclusion as to whether the Department has proved the charge against the petitioner or has failed to prove the same. 12. It may be noted that there is no straightjacket formula that if a criminal case is pending on the self-same charge, the departmental proceeding can be stayed. Long delay in disposal of the criminal trial is a ground to proceed with the departmental enquiry, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s 2026:JHHC:3080 4 Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V & Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636. Para-13 of the said judgment is as follows:- “13. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for the legal position as emerging from the above pronouncements and the earlier pronouncements of this Court in a large number of similar cases is well settled that disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar to such simultaneity. It is also evident that while seriousness of the charge levelled against the employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself sufficient unless the case also involves complicated questions of law and fact. Even when the charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the court will have to keep in mind the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly.” 12.1. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court goes one step ahead in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. reported in (1993) 3 SCC 679, and held that if the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even was stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. 13. Thus, on the procedural illegality committed by the Enquiry 2026:JHHC:3080 5 Officer, the impugned order as contained in Memo No.833 dated 30.06.2020, passed in Departmental Proceeding No.10/18 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), is hereby set aside. 13.1. Consequently, the Appellate Order as contained in Memo No.250 dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-14/1 to the writ petition), is also set aside. 14. However, the matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to commence a fresh Departmental Proceeding from the stage of enquiry itself. 14.1. The liberty is reserved with the respondents to appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer, who will conduct the enquiry after recording the evidence and will come to a definite conclusion as to whether the charge against the petitioner has been proved or not and thereafter proceed accordingly. 14.2. The entire process should be concluded, preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14.3. The reinstatement of the petitioner will be decided thereafter by the appropriate Authority based on the Disciplinary Proceeding. 15. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 04th February, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 10.02.2026