2026:JHHC:4530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2323 of 2022 ------ Barahamdeo Rawut, son of Padma Charan Rawut, at village Chilku Kantuwa,, P.O and P.S. Kharsawan, District Seraikella Kharsawan, Jharkhand. . .. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koyla Area, P.O and P.S. Bokaro, District- Ranchi. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad. ...Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): M/s Saibal Mitra & Sangita Choudhary (Mitra),Advocates For the State Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV. ------- 15/17.02.2026: Heard the parties. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- (i) For setting aside the order dated 28.7.2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. (ii) For setting aside the order as contained in Memo No. 1284 dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure-8 series) whereby, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koyla Area, Bokaro has been pleased to dismiss the Departmental Appeal of the petitioner on the ground that as per Rule 852 of the Police Manual, time limit to file Departmental Appeal is 6 months against the major punishment. (iii) For direction upon the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance as per provision of Rule 46 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules as the petitioner has been suffering from serious illness and unable to walk since February, 2016. 3. When the petitioner was posted at Police Kendra, Dhanbad, a charge sheet was issued against him vide Memo No. 125 dated 8.1.2013 alleging therein that he had absconded from the police centre on 26.6.2012 without taking permission and vide memo No. 3670 dated 26.8.2012, a direction was given to him to come and join the duty, but even after 154 days, he has not joined the duty. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority suspended the petitioner vide memo No. 5496 dated 20.12.2012. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated 31.5.2013 stating therein Page No.1 2026:JHHC:4530 that the charge has been proved and the petitioner joined his duty after unauthorized absence of 263 days. Thereafter vide order dated 28.7.2015, the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the Disciplinary Authority forfeited the salary of the petitioner for the period of unauthorized absence from 26.2.2012 to 18.12.2012 and during suspension period i.e. 19.12.2012 to 16.3.2013 on the principle of “No work No pay”. After that, the Departmental Appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koyla Area, Bokaro stating that the petitioner has not preferred the appeal in time. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are unjust, improper and against the principle of natural justice as the charge Memo has not been sent to the petitioner. He further submits that no documents were supplied to the petitioner before imposing the punishment. He also submits that the respondent authority sent a registered letter dated 25.2.2013 directing the petitioner to join the duty immediately and after receiving the aforesaid letter the petitioner has joined his duty in Police Kendra Dhanbad on 17.3.2013, though the petitioner was totally bedridden due to serious illness. He also submits that neither second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor the enquiry report was provided to him to file his reply though the petitioner has got the enquiry report under the provision of RTI Act. He further contended that on the aforesaid ground, the dismissal order is absolutely bad. He lastly submits that the punishment is too harsh. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, vide memo No. 2984 dated 18.7.2012 withhold the salary of the petitioner as he was absent from his duty at Police Line Dhanbad from 26.6.2012 without permission. Thereafter vide Memo No. 2670 dated 26.8.2012, the Superintendent of Police directed the petitioner to join his duty within two days failing which, Disciplinary Proceeding will be initiated against him and the said memo was sent to the home address of the petitioner by special messenger, however, the petitioner did not choose to join his duty. Thereafter a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in which, the petitioner also did not choose to participate. He further submits that the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 28.5.2013 and the statement of witnesses were recorded in his presence. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer, who was appointed, submitted a report, finding the charges to be proved against the petitioner. He also submits that the Page No.2 2026:JHHC:4530 Disciplinary Authority after receiving the enquiry report and considering the material on record as well as the enquiry report, passed the order of punishment, which was confirmed in appeal also, thus the impugned orders cannot be quashed and set aside. He lastly submits that there is no procedural illegality or irregularity in the entire process. 6. After hearing the parties and after going through the entire record, I find that Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on the allegation that he has absconded from the police centre on 26.6.2012 without taking permission from his superior authority and he was directed to return and join the duty. The Disciplinary Authority has suspended the petitioner and Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was seriously ill during the period 26.6.2012 to 16.3.2013, suffering from acute Osteoarthritis and after some recovery, the petitioner joined the duty in the Police Kendra, Dhanbad on 17.3.2013. During Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner had submitted his reply stating the aforesaid fact that during the aforesaid period, he was totally bedridden due to his illness. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 31.5.2013 and has stated that charge has been proved due to reason that the petitioner had not been treated in the Government Hospital and he should have left the Centre after sanctioning of his leave and he has joined his duty after unauthorized absence of 263 days. From the record, it further appears that the petitioner was not issued second show cause notice nor the enquiry report though the petitioner has got the Enquiry Report under the provision of RIT Act. Vide order dated 28.7.2015, the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad dismissed the petitioner forfeiting the salary of the petitioner for the period of unauthorized absence. Due to illness, the petitioner did not prefer the Departmental Appeal against his dismissal in time. Ultimately the petitioner has sent his Departmental Appeal to the Appellate Authority by post on 28.9.2021 stating the aforesaid facts. The appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay. Be it noted that as per Rule 852 of the Police Manual, time limit to file the appeal is 6 months against a major punishment. 7. The petitioner joined the services in the year 1977 and worked till 2012 initially. Thereafter, he remained unauthorized absence for 263 days from 26.6.2012. The petitioner was again allowed to join on 17.3.2013 and he worked till he was dismissed from service, thus he prays for setting aside Page No.3 2026:JHHC:4530 the impugned order. 8. Since the petitioner has been working since 1977 till 2012 continuously without any complaint i.e. for more than 35 years and he was again allowed to join in the year 2013, pending the Departmental Proceeding and worked till the year 2015 i.e. till his dismissal from service and the actual year of superannuation was 2018, in my opinion, the punishment of dismissal from service of the petitioner is harsh and disproportionate to the proved misconduct. There are other punishment which could have easily been inflicted like that of compulsory retirement. 9. Considering the charges levelled against the petitioner, in my opinion, the quantum of punishment of dismissal does not commensurate with the proved misconduct and is too harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. 10. It is well settled that the Courts cannot assume the function of Disciplinary Authorities and decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the domain of the competent Authority. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Rajendra Singh, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372, while observing that the judicial review of the quantum of punishment is available with a very limited scope, has held as under:- “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 Page No.4 2026:JHHC:4530 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.” 12. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment and observations made hereinabove, I find merit in this writ petition. 13. Considering what has been held above, I am interfering with the quantum of punishment, as the same is harsh and disproportionate to the proved charge. Consequently, the Order dated 28.7.2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the order as contained in Memo No. 1284 dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure-8 series) whereby, the Departmental Appeal of the petitioner has also been dismissed, are quashed and set aside. 14. However, the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to take a fresh decision on the quantum of punishment within ten weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after giving one opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order, considering the long tenure which the petitioner has served. 15. Accordingly, this petition is allowed only to the aforesaid extent. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. 17th February, 2026 (ANANDA SEN, J.) Anu-Cp2. Uploaded on: 25.2.2026 Page No.5